tracker issue : CF-4172940

select a category, or use search below
(searches all categories and all time range)
Title:

CGI Variables - Certificate Information Backwards

| View in Tracker

Status/Resolution/Reason: Closed/Withdrawn/AsDesigned

Reporter/Name(from Bugbase): John Lang / John Lang (John Lang)

Created: 07/15/2016

Components: General Server

Versions: 2016,11.0,10.0

Failure Type: Data Corruption

Found In Build/Fixed In Build: CF11_Final /

Priority/Frequency: Normal / All users will encounter

Locale/System: English / Win 2012 Server x64

Vote Count: 0

Problem Description:
When looking at CGI.CERT_SUBJECT or CGI.CERT_ISSUER variables from ColdFusion, the information is stored in reverse of what it should be. This affects interacting with other applications that rely on certificate strings.

Steps to Reproduce:
Install certificate in your browser & setup web server to accept them. Look at results of CGI variables and compare to Java results when pulled from...

CGI.CERT_ISSUER compared to:
getPageContext().getRequest().getAttribute('javax.servlet.request.X509Certificate')[1].getIssuerDN().toString()

CGI.CERT_SUBJECT compared to:
getPageContext().getRequest().getAttribute('javax.servlet.request.X509Certificate')[1].getSubjectX500Principal().getName()

Actual Result:

From CGI.CERT_SUBJECT variable.. results are like..
C=1, O=2, OU=3, OU=4, OU=5, CN=6

From Java call they are..
CN=6, OU=5, OU=4, OU=3, O=2, C=1

Same happens with CGI.CERT_ISSUER

Expected Result:

Identical to Java calls

Any Workarounds:

I can use the Java calls but they are not intiuative at all. Only found by digging hard onto Stack Overflow and doing a lot of dumps to see what methods were available to me.

----------------------------- Additional Watson Details -----------------------------

Watson Bug ID:	4172940

External Customer Info:
External Company:  
External Customer Name: John Lang
External Customer Email:  
External Test Config: My Hardware and Environment details: Windows Server 2012 R2. Both physical machines and VMs. 64 bit

Attachments:

Comments:

Will not be fixing this, as changing the order now may have an impact on existing user code.
Comment by Immanuel N.
27575 | April 18, 2018 12:18:40 PM GMT