Guide Kryptographie: Zertifikate und -strukturen, PKI, PKCS und ISO-Standards (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Kryptographie: Zertifikate und -strukturen, PKI, PKCS und ISO-Standards (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Kryptographie: Zertifikate und -strukturen, PKI, PKCS und ISO-Standards (German Edition) book. Happy reading Kryptographie: Zertifikate und -strukturen, PKI, PKCS und ISO-Standards (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Kryptographie: Zertifikate und -strukturen, PKI, PKCS und ISO-Standards (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Kryptographie: Zertifikate und -strukturen, PKI, PKCS und ISO-Standards (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

I n public key cryptography , t wo keys in the form of text files are used to verify [ Eine der wesentlichen Grundlagen. Alth ou g h public key cryptography i n t heory solves the problem of secure [ Trust centers are a central verification authority on the Internet Trust centers issue and administrate electronic personal certificates by means of which users can identify themselves to each other, and provide information concerning the validity of these certificates Besides the name of the.

A cryptography s y st em for encrypting data using an algorithm havi ng a key o f l ength N characters comprising: Cryptography w it h public a n d private keys i s c alled an asymmetrical procedure. With th i s cryptography v i rtu a l private n e tw orks allow inexpensive communication that [ The concept of an accredited trust center fulfils these criteria: A trust center issues electronic certificates to individuals who have correctly identified themselves to the trust center These personal certificates are provided with a dedicated key pair which consists of two electronic keys corresponding to each other The public key is shown in the certificate and.

Most frequent English dictionary requests: Please click on the reason for your vote: This is not a good example for the translation above. The wrong words are highlighted. It does not match my search. It should not be summed up with the orange entries The translation is wrong or of bad quality. Thank you very much for your vote! You helped to increase the quality of our service. Kryptierung beliebiger Daten mit einem [ Digitale IDs nutzen die Technologie [ Potential solutions - Attacks on DNS servers are, in principle, [ The BlackBerry Signing Authority [ For the typographie, I would prefer a compromise.

I think is important: It has to be always the same typography. And we have to justify our choice. Only some rare experts Speedy67, me , will see, that it is for some countries a little bit unusual. I hope we finish this year, as CATS can be done in french as soon as possible. There are some possibilities to get further, but we have to take a decision. One the same list, two answers where given: I do not know for other countries.

O T I * 2OO1/2 EIN BLUE CHIP ! (V) - Beiträge pro Seite (Seite 2)

Couldn't we find something acceptable in all locales? It's hard enough to get a translation done in frech, I think we will never get the thing done in all locales this thread started in ! I agree completly with Bergerc. In Belgium and Canada it is used by the government. If someone does not agree, he can propose another way for example as in FR due to the bigest population or as in CA due to the bigest surface.

If a compromise can be found in January, I can ad the latest changes in february as I have some days holidays and after review in March we could roll out the French CATS in a Easter egg Most of the suggestions made here are now merged in this file: Best regards L10N The compromises are: Hi, For me this version is also good, it's a good compromise between all languages. I agree with the other compromises. Of course, you are right. As Ted did not pass here until now, I corrected it in Github.

Eights eyes see more than six ;-. The changes are now merged into the production server. Note that I currently have troubles accessing https from the testserver, so the installation on the testserver is not up to date! If you want to keep SVN up to date, you're welcome I guess this will keep things more clearly arranged.

Enter a name with an umlaut into https: This issue happens in productive system, too: Created a user with umlauts to my own domain, did NOT click on the confirmation link, but checked this user via support console: This bug actually affects all handling of non-latin characters by the CAcert application code, and was introduced by the upgrade of the CAcert chroot application environment from Debian Wheezy to Debian Jessie on April 16, Starting with PHP 5. This is not what the current CAcert application code expects, so we need to overrule it with the earlier default "iso". Note that new accounts created between April 16, and June 22, , may have been affected by this issue.

This will be reported as an incident to support cacert. However, the code which validates and massages the signing request, does not properly check for this. As a result, it is possible to accidentally or deliberately create a very large signing request, by including a large image. I have not attempted to reproduce the problem, but there is historic evidence present on the production servers.

Look for gpg requests , or they are identical. The first one caused a blockade of all CAcert signing from Fridat This particular signing request contained an image of bytes. Due to the nature of this problem, any CAcert user with sufficient points to submit a GPG signing request, is able to block all signing operations. Therefore this bug will be set to private until a solution can be implemented. In my view there are two problems to be solved here: GPG signing requests with images should be rejected or filtered probably not very difficult. The communcation process between web frontend and signer should be resistent against huge requests: If issue 1 is solved, the priority for solving issue can be lowered.

Unable to generate client certificate Clicking generate keypair in browser results in the error "I didn't receive a valid Certificate Request, please try a different browser. The same bug happend to me to with - Chromium 55 on Ubuntu Some other checks to create new certificates: I filed a bug at Chromium and at Vivaldi a few days ago. Following the answer from Chromium: Issue in chromium: Cannot create a certificate with cacert. WontFix Comment on issue by asanka chromium. This feature is deprecated. Screen Shot at 4. You reported this issue. Removed in Chrome Further information at https: Though some browsers may still support it, it is in the process of being dropped.

Avoid using it and update existing code if possible; see the compatibility table at the bottom of this page to guide your decision. Be aware that this feature may cease to work at any time. Generating keys still works for me with Firefox On Fri, 2 Feb I have to say it is not a simple solution and it certainly requires a much higher level of technical skill than the browser solution, but it does work. I did some research on possible tools to simplify the process and I have a proposal. As far as I can see the browser route is dead, so we need to look elsewhere. I am looking at the possibility of a desktop app that would generate keys and CSR then connect to the cacert.

I am starting work on a cross-platform proof of concept which I hope to be able to demonstrate in a few weeks. A technical discussion thread was started here: Because a simple solution is better than none, I'd prefer to have console-based scripts using on-board tools such as openssl usually available for UNIX-style systems or certreq on standard Windows since many years - Vista?

Automating the CAcert certificate request page is not essential for the simple tool variant, where a graphical, more powerful and comfortable variant can complement it and doesn't need to cover platforms on an equal level or have the same robustness. Thanks for creating it. A Multiple inputs of a passphrase are required: Repeat confirm the passphrase from 2. Unlock key password] Enter Export Password: The first prompt of "Input area sequence of 3 passphrases: B If ready, press enter to open the certificate with the browser for import.

I had to go to Firefox's Certificate Manager and manually [Import You will need to unlock the. It would be useful to allow to identify votebot to nickserv to allow automatic permissions by chanserv and claim the votebot nickname. It would be a good idea to allow switching the votebot to a different meeting or vote channel via an IRC command.

Currently a configuration change by an admin on ircserver is necessary. It would be good if votebot would only accept vote and maybe other commands in the future from specific users only.

  1. public private key cryptography - German translation – Linguee.
  2. Wielders Book 4 - Silver Town Championship.
  3. Neuigkeiten zur On Track Innovations Aktie.

It could either have an own ACL or use some set of channel permissions from the vote channel i. The login with certificate is not possible because the server secure. All certificates are imported into various browser root, level3 and personal. Similar behavior on Firefox, Chrome and Safari on Mac. The main site comes up with a cert error - using an older outdated version of https to connect to the site. Have the root certificates installed in your browser? You may find the root certificates here: My signing request, on basis of key alg.

This is the default after only some RSA tests. Now have to redo all security of the webserver because cacert doesn't know DH and elliptic keys anymore. Requests were generated with latest openssl. Please restore this functionality! I can confirm this. A quick look at cacert-devel a82fa9eba8a9f5dff82ddbd29edf71 confirms this. Hm, I don't understand - https: Also, when I try to get a EC CSR signed, it's not "not returning a certificate", but it's printing out an error here, without much detail though: The keys you supplied use an unrecognized algorithm. For security reasons these keys can not be signed by CAcert.

There are plans for support for this. The comment in https: These checks are currently still completely missing. Providing a patch for these will help greatly. Interesting read about ECC https: If I hadn't done this before and could guess that "verify" is meant I hadn't understood it. I changed the translation in line and "Ja, On the page http: Change the above location of ca-bundle. Maybe the information from this document [1] could be helpfull? No, because all pathses for the cert files description in it, are wrong. As it will mainly redirect on the login page this should not break something.

Could you evaluate, whether we can configure that in Mantis, and if not to file a feature request for that feature on http: Hi, The confirmation mail when you register in Mantis redirects you to the non-secure access where you have to define your password. Please change all links to https. I don't agree for "possibility to login without HTTPS is a feature", this is probably a very specific case, you can still offer a redirect page that displays information and a link to a form specific for this kind of problems and a link to the secure site.

So please, secure all our sites and make it state of the art. Thanks a lot for the hard work! While trying to access https: After, it gives the following error message: Neuverhandlung ist auf diesem SSL-Socket nicht erlaubt. The same happend with the URL - https: On someone wrote on cacert-board lists. I'm trying to access motions e. Could it be the same? Not sure of the german text, but it's the same issue in that once the server-side cert is accepted, the server does a re-negotiation request for the client cert.

Which breaks because re-negotiation is no longer supported I guess. The reason I suspect this is because PD wrote the voting thing, and the code I used from him for fiddle had the same thing - renegotiation was required during the client cert phase. I wasn't able to isolate that part of the code and fix it at the time. So I'm assuming the vote. So, fix the vote. Not sure if this is possible?

Someone mentioned that it is how the certificates are created makes a difference. It works "to use openssl to create key and csr, like this: There are variants of openssl commands which create a CSR from existing keys. The builtin help of openssl provides more information. Firefox is not working with our motion system but all other CAcert pages do here.

As I create my certificates on cacert. Secure connection failed An error occurred during a connection to community. Renegotiation is not allowed on this SSL socket. Please contact the owner of the website to inform him of this problem. I'd like to translate the Assurer Challenge to Spanish.

Yes, please, do it if not allready started! Unfortunatelly one year ago or so I lost access to my CAcert account. I tried to get it back contacting support with no success, so I decided to quit as assurer and translator. I am sorry about that. This was really a bad time to have troubles: Yo comienzo como usted en en CAcert. Con su ayuda y la ayuda de algunos otros, traeremos adelante CAcert.

Sorry for poor spanish I see the support engineering this week. I have been trying to automate the issuing of my CA certs, using the api found at cacert. I've double and triple checked everything, but can't seem to get it to work. I am trying to issue certificate to myself and set in Advanced options that SHA should be used.

But issued certificate has SHA signature. Click to new server certificate. Take issued certificate and see its signatureAlgorithm. POST data query shows that sha information is sent: When I try to add the certificate to my HP printer to enable the scan to email function I receive the following error: The certificate is not RFC compliant. Putting my email addresses in returned failures for two of my addresses,which work as I am sending and receiving emails all day on them. The HTML source code is: Switch to French in the default language URL https: This country is called Vanuatu since its independence and their passport is not on http: You found the easter egg!

Take from ticket s The CSR shows the following: Subject Public Key Info: We need an auditor interface in the web-interface, both for internal and external auditors. The auditor should have the function of running predefined queries against the database, and see the result of them. This could also be extended to a Apache logfile analysis. There have been exploits in the CAcert source that could only detected by looking at the Apache logfiles.

Is there an Arbitration ruling to provide this kind of access? Else this would neither be covered by Security Policy nor by Privacy Policy. Sometimes it's hard to judge if an account is still in use. Apr or was it June ?!? I have reviewed Uli's patch, modified it slightly and added it to the test server.

Please review and test the changes. Account Activity Account created: I have just implemented the changes discussed in the last meeting: If you need to see it you have to click on the heading. Please retest and review. I tested different accounts. There was a request to show whether the account was accessed within the last 30 days and not whether we are in the same month which was what the supplied patch did. I have implemented that on the test system.

I also discovered that the last accessed date is actually only set when logging in via password, not if logging via client cert. The last login with certifcate should also be processed. The activity should show the last acitivity on the account either password login or cert login depending what was the latest. Currently none of my test accounts have valid certificates. If I log in to create one, that will reset the last activity to "within the last month", so I can't tell if a subsequent certificate login updates the last activity properly.

This bug is a split of bug regarding the database cleanup for deleted accounts. In the support case [s He could not access it, and searching in the SE console I could not find it either. However if he used the 'Lost password' link on the login website, entered the email address and correct birthdate, he got to step 2 of password recovery. That means, here his account showed up. This looked strange to me, since normally as SE I can search even for deleted email addresses and I find all accounts this email address belongs to or previously belonged.

But in this case I didn't find it. So I asked Wytze and he told me: I suggest that this handling should be straightened in the way that an SE always can see all email addresses, domains and accounts that ever existed. If there is more than one account, in the list of the accounts to select, a flag should be added to show if it is an active account, email address or domain or if it is deleted. I am the Arbitrator of a Piet Starreveld is the Case Manager.

That case is related to bug I hereby give the following preliminary ruling: A patch for bug may not be set productive until the arbitration case a Not receiving account confirmation e-mail. Try to do an email dispute on a deleted email. There should not be a notice send to support or one of the members as if the email would be part of the old account.

For blocked and unblocked accounts. Aly verify dispute none-deleted email addresses. The email dispute does not destinguish if emails of locked accounts are marked as deleted or not. This leads to a notice to support that someone tried to dispute a dispute from a blocked account and possibly other activites. As soon as an email is deleted in an account it can be added to another account. So the email dispute functionality should come to the same conclusion, that there is no need for an email dispute on that email. Regardless if the original account is blocked or not.

A deleted email address should be treated like a free email address in any situation. Which is the case everywhere else. Please add a check for deletion of the email address to at least that part of the email dispute functionality. Add an email to an account. Delete that email and block that account. Alternatively just delete the account which will do both. This bug was added based on a ruling in arbitration case a For details consult the according case file: Ted, could you ask Antonio and an other spanish speaker to review the diff file?

It is waiting for review for nearly two years I have reviewed the diff file and made some changes. The updated diff file has been uploaded and is named: After failing the cats once and trying it again, you can view the results of the new test when you use the back button of your browser to get back to the results page of the previous test. The system the main page, too now shows two tries, the second of which with perfect scores.

I didn't try to reproduce for obvious reasons, but I think the required steps to be: What happened, the page was empty i. This is now recorded as having done the tests twice, whereby I've only done it once. Results confirmed by logging into secure. Confirming how to become an insurer in only 2mn 39": Use utf-8 as encoding for all user visible strings to open the possibility to translate to non latin languages.

Having unix style NL-only line endings would be nice too saves space and the production system is using Linux anyway. Yeah using utf8 everywhere would be nice. Translingo is using utf8 as encoding that could cause some issues when saving strings with non-ascii chars. Using UTF-8 could cause trouble with legacy data in the database.

So implementing it in the front end code is not enough. A database conversion script must be implemented too. Maybe a dump and restore with a recode in between will work Code for the Donation button. I pushed a fix to https: Test with Chrome Version I pushed a new fix to https: The CAcert CommModule server. The current code does not properly take Perl operator priority into account. Try to stop the running signing server server. Observe that the server.

Context diff for the source code fix is: Tested by Crit wytze when providing the original patch. Also tested by me when restarting the CommModule recently when I applied patches on the testserver. Patch looks OK, although I'm not Perl-literate enough to get why it was not working before. Yes, the ready would contain a different value, but shouldn't that be false too if the server. Tested on a local installation: The Signer seems to behave identically with or without the brackets. In both cases the perl command terminated within 20 seconds.

See steps to reproduce. Target is testing all functions causing zero issues doing so. Use a plugin like "Caspr: Enforcer" and enable the above policy. The above policy requires mostly the following changes: A command similar to: PG did some magical on the production system and fixed this problem this was, before software assessment team started working global task: Changed password as user to: Tried to solve the problem with: You can read "Domain certificates" in the main part of the window.

It should be "Domain and Server Certificates",I suppose. See the attachment, too. After login to your account at CAcert, open "Server certificates" - "View" from the menu, then observe the heading of the main part of the window. If you want to get a new client certificate, the text on the web page related reads "SSL server certificate". This improper text is seen in both Czech and English, probably also in another languages. This text has possible legal impact! Log in to www. Select from right menu "Client Certificates", "New". Look to the left part of the window.

The API should be used from internal CAcert systems to verify if a user that identifies himself with a CAcert certificate is an assurer. Statements writing to a table with an auto-increment column after selecting from another table are unsafe because the order in which rows are retrieved determines what if any rows will be written.

This order cannot be predicted and may differ on master and the slave. AND Jun 23 Can you provide some information about the mysql server setup or point to the documentation is the wiki. Identical mysql server warnings can be observed on these test servers. Perhaps it is sufficient to add: There needs to be a way for the Member to verify that someone is an Assurer. For an online system mechanism, it could be any of these variations to get confirmation: When the method is used, a confirmation of status should be shown: Optionally other information could be added, under control of the Assurer.

Status may be implied from information in a certificate.

Ask a Question

The number of Assurance Points for each Member is not published. One attack is to pretend to be an Assurer and ask people for their identity information. Members should be taught to check the Assurer's status. Suggestion for Is Assurer Check: A new page with a text box for the primary email address of a potential Assurer. A dropdownbox with the reason why the information is needed e.

Once the form is send the result is not displayed on the screen. It is send to the requestor and the assurer via mail. The screen only shows the information that the mail was sent. Dear xxxx, you requested an Assurer check for the primary email address x y. BR Mail to Assurer: Try to get the assurer status of an assurer, a non assurer and one email that is not list in the testserver.

Do proper indentation of the HTML in the file so the source doesn't look to messy. Names of tags should be lowercase e. Why do we need sprintf on a translation without format string parameters? Indentation for the notification on the web page doesn't need to be that far too the right. I pushed a new fix to adjust the adminlog table https: Did some tests from account ted convey. If I request the status of switch1 the mail shows up in both Test Manager accounts, with target address switch1.

This may be a bug in the Test Manager, but it's a bit strange nevertheless Account deleted3 is reported as "No Assurer", but the account is deleted, so it should be reported as "Not found". I guess it's intentional that only the primary mail address for an account is found.

I guess it's acceptable if the lookup finds such an account. The limit did not cut in, maybe because I tested with an Admin-Account? Another test with switch2 and switch1, now switch2 is Assurer, switch1 is not. Checking correctly returns the status of both accounts. Is there any limit how many requests one can send? Is there a way to opt out? Also I do not see the Arbitration reason.

The bigger problem for Arbitration is to figure out the primary address, to begin with. In most cases this is not known to Arbitration. As to be able to test the assurance status the Arbitrator would first need to ask support for this. As there would be a need to ask support, anyway, any needed information - this could exclude the primary address - could be provided by support to Arbitration.

Also anybody could state to just ask for an arbitration reason. IF this would be implemented, it should only be possible for members of the arbitration team, as this could be missused anyway. Currently the software does not have a flag for a member of the assurance team.

Also, the new topic type "Data Privacy Quiz" should be supported. Changes proposed by felixd, plus some cosmetic changes, checked in to branch bug and merged into testserver branch. Automatic upload should now be active on the testserver every 5 minutes. Additional tests and reviews would be nice, but since we're not under SM this is considered optional.

Also, but this is separate from the functional stuff, I'd be glad if we could avoid trailing whitespace at the end of lines. No biggie, but always looks kinda wrong when having a look at the diff in Git. Out of Incidents i To divide the different needs for data privacy by different roles, following CATS tests are recommended: The questions and answers can be provided by myself, if you grant me the rights needed.

The public key of the certificate is attached. Benedikt, you should now be able to log in to the development CATS https: If you are not, please tell me, this is the first time I tried to add someone manually. The four tests you proposed are already created but still waiting for questions. So far for the development system. Before I transfer any tests from the development system to the productive system there should be a written procedure in the WiKi? Installed on Test Server as: We found out that the changes of are not needed as the import script automatically creates that entries.

There needs to be an adjustment to "UploadResults. The VoteBot has been rewritten. The new VoteBot source is here: If someone imports a server certificate into the browser it is possible to use this certificate to log in to CATS. Though this is not a real bad problem it leads to problems when uploading the results to the main CAcert database. From the logic behind the system CATS expects a certificate to identify a person, not a server, so the most consistent way to fix this bug is to refuse login for server certificates. A certificate is defined as a client certificate if it contains an "Email" field in the CN.

Created branch bug on https: Tested with this procedure: Your certificate does not contain an Email field, you are probably using a server certificate. Server certificates cannot be used to log in to CATS since they do not identify a person. Please test also with your own browser. I added the test. Login works with my "usual" client certificate. Additional tests needed for other types of allowed certificates: I tested with a new created server certificate from the test server which I imported via mmc to the windows truststore.

With Chrome I was able to connect to the cats1 but this error message is shown: Try to ping a domain that is not reachable for an email ping or cause other issues. Test the success case gives no transcript. If the email ping is not successful, give the user a better information why it did not work. A patch is here: I tried to create a new account with an email address with a non existing domain: I get the follwing error message: I get the follwing error message when trying to select one of the addresses suggested mails: Gucky Determining MX records for mail delivery: You will now be sent an email with a web link, you need to open that link in your web browser within 24 hours or your information will be removed from our system!

Tramp - Mailbox Name: Tramp' at priority 0 Building priority queue for test of servers: Tramp' with priority 0 Starting test for id 0 for host 'Plofre. Tramp' - Trying to connect to 'tcp: Die E-Mail-Adresse 'gucky Cacert. Tramp' with priority 0 Starting test for id 0 for host 'plofre. Die E-Mail-Adresse 'gucky1 cacert. Die E-Mail-Adresse 'gucky gukk.

Only account with id shows no entires,. Missing name entries if organisation name contains special characters on Organisation overview. Fix is available here: When looking at the organisation list as an org assurer only one entry looks as if something is not displayed correctly it only shows a ",". I was told by someone with access to the database that this is exactly as it is based on what is written in the database for that organisation. Check if the point calculation is adjusted according to the new points calculation. General fix in points calculation: Experience points are not counted as "points" where this is appropriate e.

This situation might arise as the following.

  • List of Acronyms and Abbreviations together with a Glossary |
  • JAMES DICKEYS POETRY: The Religious Dimension;
  • The Legend of Beardslee Manor.
  • Harpers Bluff!
  • DEB4 - A method for trusted transformation of digital certificates - Google Patents!
  • How to Get OVER AN EX When Youre Still in LOVE (Pocket Coach Series)?
  • KRYPTO - Kryptographie in Theorie und Praxis.
  • An user receives points and passes CATS. An user assures some people receiving experience points. Check that the following actions still work: If you delete an assurance in the SE console please make sure that you delete the corresponding "Expierence Points" assurance aswell. Otherwise the calculation of the Total assuracance points in the SE console will not be correct. Added 49 assurance points via test mgr Created client cert: I do not see that the big bunsh of entries are testable in a sensible manner so that it is documented in an understandable way. Protests against this combination of so many things into one bug-entry, especially when it is about as substancial things as assurances and a lot of other things Please find another way how this tests should be done.

    The way these tests are handled is the only sensible one even if the bugs were split originally for review purposes. You were one of the people complaining to not want to test the whole system range of effects single changes in this patch set for every patch result of not combining the test in the patch set. If we were not to test this change at all we wouldn't get any change of it online. There were similar patches like this in the past and while testing took some time to review the whole system and yes, with the current software that is sometimes the only way it has been managed.

    Nobody forces you to test this patch. If you feel like you can't cope: Testing is voluntary for the testers, yet compulsory for getting a change set into production. It's much preferable if the testers are confident in what they do instead of complaining. Tests can usually be split at the boundaries of the bugs while keeping in mind the features from other bugs they depend on. This can be roughly seen from the way the merges were performed while combining the change sets for this issue some issues are merged explicitly into foreign branches despite them being merged into this bug anyway.

    If there is such a big bug and big patch there should be at least one if not multiple descirptions of what is done on a "use case" or comparable level. Something that describes for someone not deeply into the software what this is all about. This is even the case if it should not lead to any visible changes. Currently there are only quite random thing listed, that seem to belong to different original bug entries.

    I do not complain about that "everything" needs to be tested. That is something that needs to be done, now and again. But this "everything" cannot be actually everything as one would need indefinite time to do this. So one has to focus on something. To be able to do so one has to do this with the specific kind of change in mind. It is definitly not enough to only concentrate on those points that the coder has touched, as our tests are specificly done to find side effect of those changes, especially those that the coder did not have in mind.

    Also most big features can normally be split to smaller ones. It would be good to be able to focus on those with the tests, even if one would have to do the complete test multiple times. I created a new account. We tested and live-fixed that bug on another testsystem. The resulting commit is here: The the totals are correct.

    Adding a new assurance come back to 35 points max. Generated 24 users and let the user assure each of them. Discuss which behavior is correct I patched the code that calculates the 'overall points' a to only include exp. Discuss which behavior is correct". I performed a test. Gave user three full assurances AP. This was done by Felix using his script. Now user has 48 EP. System displayed a maximum of 30 AP, and only 30 AP were granted. System displayed a maximum of 35 AP, and all 35 AP were granted. User passed Assurer Challenge, but still needs AP. System displayed a maximum of 0 AP, and only 0 AP were granted.

    User was not listed. Menu item not present, but page reachable by entering URL manually. Commits c8 and 0adfd System displayed a maximum of 35 AP, and 35 AP were granted. Menu item not present. When entering URL manually, got error: System displayed a maximum of 35 AP. The menu item is also hidden. This was fixed by felixd. I am not aware of any further bugs related to this issue. Felix asked me to check the additional commits 5ab9a73 and eadb Does not show revocation info neither old nor new calculation.

    Logged out and logged in again. Attempted to access it via URL. Seeing as the commits only touched output code, I see no need to repeat the original test. Also available at https: Create new account Arbitration notice from Arbitrator of a This bug should not go productive until a question raised in the case related to this bug is answered and a possible issue is clarified.

    Hopefully no issue will be detected and the block can be removed, soon. All line numbers reference the files from eadbc5dcc45a76ebe0?. If there are multiple primary keys in this table we're in deep trouble, regardless whether one or all rows are updated Correct this, or explain me that I'm wrong It was ignored before, but as I see it expired notaries should not be counted here.

    Community Spotlight

    It should not hurt, but how can "from" be equal to "to"? New code does not handle temporary points at all? Quite ugly, but not worse than before. API for requesting certificates removed. API for querying own account information removed. Regarding the review fails: If you prefer SQL-standard compliant versions you can leave this clause out. It was primarily added for defense in depth if some conditional was screwed. The handling of expired points is indeed missing and should be added to be consistent with the WebDB software.

    Even though there should be no affected records no current temporary increases, no such programs defined, old records cleaned by Cronjob it's better to be safe here. Have to revisit the code changes there to say more on this change. You can perform the changes required; I'll revisit the modified locations for my review afterwards. This is indeed unclear when which part has to be sent.

    I changed the conditionals to have the following meaning: The Limit clause helps to state the programmer's intent that only one line is to be modified and thereby beneficial to make the code understandable. As BenBE already told there should be no expired records.

    Handling expired records consistently would include adding this extra clause in every SQL-query touched. As there should not be expired records, I think, that we should not try to add extra complexity in so many different locations. I added a commit that changes the bad conditional: Arbitration note from the Arbitrator of a The blocking element for that case is - since over a quarter of a year!

    As this mail has to be sent weeks prior to the installation of this bug, handle the requested SQL query with priority. There is an Arbitration request to do this for months. The requirements about the query are quite clear. I do not care how the query looks like, as long as the requirements are met. The current proposal from my side is: You may also provide another version, that also provides the Fname, Lname and email of the assuree, for accounts that are not deleted and any other parts which may be required to inform a member via a mail-script, if you regard it to be likely that there are affected members.

    As already stated, you may also provide different queries, that match the requirements or update the above to fix syntactic or comparable issues. If you think that you need to know if there are recent entries of higher administrative increases on the production system you may add a grouping for the years of the assurances.

    However, my requirement is, that at the time being only counts and no specific values of affected accounts are provided. Beside of possibly a version with name and email to contact affected users, probably via automated mail-script.

    Interessante Links

    The description about what the queries should provide by Benny: There should be no such records available as the administrative increase by default should be at most 2 points. If you continue to insist on queries that will provide data that was not allowed by the Arbitrator, or if you continue to reject the decision of the Arbitrator of if you continue to delay the creation and review of this query, there will be consequences.

    You were warned before, multiple times. There were meetings about this. There were agreements, which seem to be waved by you, already. The review of the query is a lot easier than the review of this bug, so I definitly cannot understand why it is not done. There was already a deadline for Then there was a meeting where you promised to cover this, ASAP. Then I got a mail that this would be covered ASAP but not within the next weeks, because you decided that you would cover Arbitration requests in an order of your likeing arbitration number. Then there were answers to other cases, with a higher number.

    But the only answers I got for this case were "rejected" because you insist that more informations should be gathered, at