minica | simple CA intended for use in situations where the CA | TLS library
kandi X-RAY | minica Summary
kandi X-RAY | minica Summary
Minica is a simple CA intended for use in situations where the CA operator also operates each host where a certificate will be used. It automatically generates both a key and a certificate when asked to produce a certificate. It does not offer OCSP or CRL services. Minica is appropriate, for instance, for generating certificates for RPC systems or microservices. On first run, minica will generate a keypair and a root certificate in the current directory, and will reuse that same keypair and root certificate unless they are deleted. On each run, minica will generate a new keypair and sign an end-entity (leaf) certificate for that keypair. The certificate will contain a list of DNS names and/or IP addresses from the command line flags. The key and certificate are placed in a new directory whose name is chosen as the first domain name from the certificate, or the first IP address if no domain names are present. It will not overwrite existing keys or certificates. The certificate will have a validity of 2 years and 30 days.
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of minica
minica Key Features
minica Examples and Code Snippets
Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on minica
QUESTION
I'd like to write a unit test for an HTTP handler which extracts certain information from a device's certificate. I've found this gist, https://gist.github.com/ncw/9253562, which uses openssl
to generate the certificates and simply reads the resulting files in its client.go
and server.go
. To make things a bit more transparent, however, I'd like to generate the certificates using Go's standard library.
Here is my attempt so far at the unit test (available at https://github.com/kurtpeek/client-auth-test):
...ANSWER
Answered 2020-Apr-07 at 00:24Looking a bit more closely at ncw
's gist, I noticed that one key difference was the setting of the InsecureSkipVerify
option in the client's TLS config to true
. I added this, so
QUESTION
I'm trying to create certificate for both test
and *.test
. I'm using minica
to generate it and everything goes well (alt names are added):
ANSWER
Answered 2019-Mar-01 at 08:03Although you can create a valid certificate for second-level domain or even top level domain those certificates won't be respected by the browsers for security reasons (i.e. certificate for *.com would be very dangerous). So even though test
is a reserved domain name that can't be registered by any registrar, the certificate will be still rejected.
When you try to do this with mkcert
you'll get pretty nice warning:
Warning: many browsers don't support second-level wildcards like *.test ⚠️
Use i.e. app.test
+ *.app.test
instead.
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install minica
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page