Skip to main content
Information Security

Return to Question

replaced http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc with https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

In the X.509 specificationX.509 specification it sais that the issuer name is to be signed.

Since we verify the certificate with the authenticated issuer's public key, it seems infeasible to forge the issuer name anyways. A different issuer name would lead us to choose a different entities public key which would never match the signature.

Could somebody please shed some light on this for me?

In the X.509 specification it sais that the issuer name is to be signed.

Since we verify the certificate with the authenticated issuer's public key, it seems infeasible to forge the issuer name anyways. A different issuer name would lead us to choose a different entities public key which would never match the signature.

Could somebody please shed some light on this for me?

In the X.509 specification it sais that the issuer name is to be signed.

Since we verify the certificate with the authenticated issuer's public key, it seems infeasible to forge the issuer name anyways. A different issuer name would lead us to choose a different entities public key which would never match the signature.

Could somebody please shed some light on this for me?

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/367662696130695168
Source Link
Karl Hardr
Karl Hardr
  • 692
  • 5
  • 13

Why is the issuer name field signed in X.509?

In the X.509 specification it sais that the issuer name is to be signed.

Since we verify the certificate with the authenticated issuer's public key, it seems infeasible to forge the issuer name anyways. A different issuer name would lead us to choose a different entities public key which would never match the signature.

Could somebody please shed some light on this for me?