8369282: Distrust TLS server certificates anchored by Chunghwa ePKI Root CA

[mcpowers]

JDK-8369282

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change requires CSR request JDK-8374054 to be approved

Issues

• JDK-8369282: Distrust TLS server certificates anchored by Chunghwa ePKI Root CA (Enhancement - P3)
• JDK-8374054: Distrust TLS server certificates anchored by Chunghwa ePKI Root CA (CSR)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28930/head:pull/28930
$ git checkout pull/28930

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/28930
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28930/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 28930

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 28930

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28930.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back mpowers! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

@mcpowers The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• security

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (e543476f)

[myankelev]

nit: checkDistrust is an odd name for a method throwing an error and not returning anything in my opinion. But since it's used in other files and behaves the same I think it's fine.

[myankelev]

I might be wrong, but wouldn't 'Not Before' mean that it would also include the date ('Equals or After'). I think renaming it to checkIsAfter would be better, what do you think?

[mcpowers]

I agree. However, notBefore was probably chosen because it is also a field in the X509Certificate. The name appears in many places. What about adding a comment:
Check whether the certificate's notBeforeDate is after the distrust date for the anchor (root CA).
Throw ValidatorException if it is after the distrust date.

[myankelev]

That would be fine with me and I think would be helpful. Thank you!