packetized

I dare say that it’s annoying you as a result of cognitive dissonance about your employer paying six figures to migrate to it.

If you’re being paid well, obviously you’ll be annoyed by concepts contrary to your work.

e: edits are hated, but the downvotes prove out: Kubernetes is simply OpenStack for hipsters.

The finding in TLS-01-003 is surprising to me, mostly because it presupposes a lack of sophistication among users of this library who are also using X.509 NameConstraints. From RFC5280:

  For example, a name constraint for "class C" subnet 192.0.2.0 is represented as the octets C0 00 02 00 FF FF FF 00, representing the CIDR notation 192.0.2.0/24 (mask 255.255.255.0).

As they mention in the findings:

  Typically, subnet masks should be contiguous and the presence of a non-contiguous mask might indicate a typo (such as 225.255.255.0 vs. 255.255.255.0), or potentially an attempt to bypass an access control scheme. Therefore, it is recommended to treat certificates containing non-contiguous subnet masks in their name constraints as invalid.

This seems to run counter to the intent in the RFC. By allowing for a four-octet subnet mask, instead of simply an int to represent the a contiguous CIDR mask, the RFC authors may have intended that more complex IP-based NameConstraints could be constructed. This certainly would make a huge difference for something like an intermediate (CA:TRUE), where it becomes much more economical to specify a sparse mask for a highly templated network. Think certs for network equipment or VoIP phones with regular, repeatable IP addressing across many locations/networks. E.g., a VoIP provisioning system that has an intermediate issuing CA with the following NameConstraints: IP:172.16.0.0/255.255.1.239.

If any change comes from this specific finding, I would hope that it's simply a flag to allow or disallow the use of discontiguous masks. I do understand that this is specific to WebPKI; having said that, if a client is implemented using rustls (with these recommendations enabled) and it happens across a perfectly valid certificate issued by an intermediate with a discontiguous mask in the NameConstraints, presumably it would fail or otherwise break. And yes, I have previously configured precisely this in an intermediate CA.

This is absolutely a false dichotomy. A home-cooked meal is not one conventionally thought of as being from items hyperlocally sourced. At least, not in the last 70-100 years. We’ve had Sears Roebuck and the like for quite some time.

The fact that the OP had to resort to unofficial channels to get satisfaction is the problem, full stop.

I would say that is much more damning of their state of customer interest.

That you would have to communicate this to a customer via HN is pretty damning.

Vault is a phenomenal tool, full stop.

Agreed, I just found the juxtaposition of the two confusing at first.

On mobile, this site has a “toggle high contrast” widget on the left side that seems to directly contravene the points made in the article.

The first two nota benes explicitly describe this document being outdated and not what most people expect when it comes to “memory controller”. I am not certain that citing this is a great example.