← Back to context

Comment by mcpherrinm

11 hours ago

(As the author of the post)

I've written and worked on a few TLS implementations, so it wasn't terribly interesting to me. And I have to go to work tomorrow and solve real, modern CA problems :)

But in short, I wanted to use Go, and it doesn't support SSLv3, the SSLv2 Client Hello, or the 40-bit RC4-MD5 export-grade cipher suites which I wanted to support too.

I was more shocked that I managed to get stock OpenSSL to issue a certificate that worked. There's a number of things that didn't work there, too. You can find my scars in mkcert.sh in the repo. Perhaps all of this is worthy of a follow-up post.

I could have tried to get some old server running instead, but I wouldn't have wanted to deploy that on the internet, even on an isolated Fly VM.

Strange seeing how people have such a hard time seeing others using AI and seem to want to complain about it instead of just, well, asking AI why something was likely done a way. It works both ways my dudes, experts don’t need to explain every last detail, prompt a bot with the context until you understand.

From my prospective, the outputs of a bot aren’t the interesting bits, it’s the input prompt that should warrant more attention.

I bet all the certificate metadata shown in the „View a certificate“ popup window is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. Back then you probably wouldn’t get a <script> tag through a CA's review process and I found such a problem in Netscape's image „About page“ popup.

  • If it were vulnerable to XSS, why would you even want it properly signed by a CA? People almost never inspect the certificates of working websites, the only time they might look at it is when it fails validation.