On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 15:00 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
Toggle quote (44 lines)
> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 19:13 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> > > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
> > > >
> > > > > We should patch GnuTLS so that it also honors the SSL_*
> > > > > environment
> > > > > variables documented in the Guix manual.
> > > >
> > > > Note that (1) the SSL_* variables are originally from OpenSSL, and
> > > > (2)
> > > > GnuTLS developers made the conscious decision to not honor any
> > > > environment variable, leaving it up to application developers to do
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > That’s the reason we are in this situation. See the thread at
> > > > <
> > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2014-02/msg00237.html
> > > > > .
> > >
> > > That thread is worth reading, but for those who are short on time, I
> > > want to call attention to a specific point I made:
> > >
> > > However, GnuTLS does not support an environment variable setting,
> > > so we
> > > would have to patch the code (add_system_trust in lib/system.c). I
> > > strongly considered doing this, but I'm worried about the possible
> > > security implications. For example, consider a setuid program that
> > > uses
> > > GnuTLS and assumes that the person who ran the program will not be
> > > capable of changing the trust store that GnuTLS uses. This
> > > assumption
> > > would be correct for the upstream GnuTLS, but not for ours.
> > >
> > > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2014-02/msg00245.html>
> > >
> >
> > Would it be an idea to propose the patches, or the idea, for supporting
> > the SSL_* variables to the GnuTLS developers?
>
> Sure, please feel free to discuss it with them.
I submitted a feature request here:
Toggle quote (6 lines)
> > Or is there a more fundamental reason why GnuTLS does not support
> > changing certificate stores at run-time?
>
> I don't know. It's been many years since I looked at this.
>
Well, thank you for having looked at it in the past. :)
Hopefully we will find out more by means of the feature request I submitted.
Kind regards,
Roel Janssen