starred/dehydrated
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/dehydrated-io/dehydrated.git synced 2026-09-02 08:57:22 +02:00
Code Issues 79 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

value of ${issuer_cert_uri} part of chain.pem #220

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 01:19:11 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 01:19:11 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Originally created by @hefty-pty on GitHub (May 23, 2017).

since commit 6a32f20e00 the value of ${issuer_cert_uri} precedes the certificate in chain.pem and is also part of fullchain.pem. deleting line 671 should remove that issue (i hope that's not a feature I don't understand)

--- a/dehydrated
+++ b/dehydrated
@@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ walk_chain() {
     local next_issuer_cert_uri
     next_issuer_cert_uri="$(get_issuer_cert_uri "${tmpcert}")"
     if [[ -n "${next_issuer_cert_uri}" ]]; then
-      printf "\n%s\n" "${issuer_cert_uri}"
+      printf "\n%s\n" "${issuer_cert_uri}"
       cat "${tmpcert}"
       walk_chain "${tmpcert}" "${next_issuer_cert_uri}"
     fi
Originally created by @hefty-pty on GitHub (May 23, 2017). since commit 6a32f20e004b9d835cd02de9d78300be02784cf1 the value of ${issuer_cert_uri} precedes the certificate in chain.pem and is also part of fullchain.pem. deleting line 671 should remove that issue (i hope that's not a feature I don't understand) ``` --- a/dehydrated +++ b/dehydrated @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ walk_chain() { local next_issuer_cert_uri next_issuer_cert_uri="$(get_issuer_cert_uri "${tmpcert}")" if [[ -n "${next_issuer_cert_uri}" ]]; then - printf "\n%s\n" "${issuer_cert_uri}" + printf "\n%s\n" "${issuer_cert_uri}" cat "${tmpcert}" walk_chain "${tmpcert}" "${next_issuer_cert_uri}" fi ```
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 01:19:11 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 01:19:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@lukas2511 commented on GitHub (May 26, 2017):

Yea it's part of fullchain.pem, but what's the issue with that?

From what I understand from the RFC everything between encapsulated data blocks is considered an annotation and should not be interpreted.
I didn't find any issues with this ever, so why remove the potentially helpful comment from the file?

@lukas2511 commented on GitHub (May 26, 2017): Yea it's part of fullchain.pem, but what's the issue with that? From what I understand from the RFC everything between encapsulated data blocks is considered an annotation and should not be interpreted. I didn't find any issues with this ever, so why remove the potentially helpful comment from the file?
adam commented 2025-12-29 01:19:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@hefty-pty commented on GitHub (May 28, 2017):

sorry, I wasn't aware that comments should be tolerated in a .pem-file.

@hefty-pty commented on GitHub (May 28, 2017): sorry, I wasn't aware that comments should be tolerated in a .pem-file.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Complicated
bug
enhancement
help wanted
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 suggestions wanted
testing
No labels
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No projects
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam (Adam Melkus)
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/dehydrated#220