X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol — OCSP¶
Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., & Adams, C. (2013). X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol — OCSP.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Certification
- The revocation channel is also explicit: certificate revocation lists and OCSP exist precisely because a token must be invalidatable when the underlying truth (a key compromise) changes.
This sourceDefines the online revocation-checking channel by which a token can be invalidated when the underlying key is compromised.
- The revocation channel is also explicit: certificate revocation lists and OCSP exist precisely because a token must be invalidatable when the underlying truth (a key compromise) changes.
- Validity-ending Event
- The post-invalidation retention regime is the prime's distinctive commitment, and it is exactly what revocation gets right — the certificate is not destroyed; it persists as a referenceable object whose serial number is added to a Certificate Revocation List or answered by an OCSP responder, so that a relying party can always determine that this specific certificate was valid until time T and revoked thereafter, keeping prior reliance traceable.
This sourceOCSP responders answer the revocation status of a specific certificate; cached-response refresh latency produces trust in an already-revoked key.
- The post-invalidation retention regime is the prime's distinctive commitment, and it is exactly what revocation gets right — the certificate is not destroyed; it persists as a referenceable object whose serial number is added to a Certificate Revocation List or answered by an OCSP responder, so that a relying party can always determine that this specific certificate was valid until time T and revoked thereafter, keeping prior reliance traceable.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:4d68a658023b · see in the full table