IPv6 support for X509v3 SubjectAltNames #936
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ipv6 encoding support in x509v3 subject alternative names
|
Unit tests for the existing IPv4 behaviour and the newly added IPv6 functionality would be nice. Or is that already covered somewhere? |
…alternative names extended attribute
|
I added a quick unit test to decode both IPv4 and IPv6 elements in subject alt names. Other than the x509v3 subjectaltname I don't know of another location where IP address information must be encoded as binary "in network byte order", other locations like subject encode them as text. |
|
I apologize for the delay! This has been merged - thanks!! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Switched out pack/unpack and ip2long/long2ip with inet_pton/ntop for ipv6 encoding support in x509v3 subject alternative names. The functions should be in PHP5.1 (or 5.3 for Windows) or later.
I am attaching my before and after certificates generated with this patch for comparison.
ipv6.before.crt.txt
ipv6.after.crt.txt
Please let me know if this is acceptable, or if there are changes / alternative approaches you would prefer. Thanks.