RFC 6962 (Certificate Transparency Policy) Support #3688

Open
opened 2026-02-28 03:37:48 -05:00 by deekerman · 0 comments
Owner

Originally created by @felix021 on GitHub (Oct 23, 2024).

  • Issue #4687 mentioned Certificate transparency monitor but it's not quite convenient to deploy two services and maintain the list separately.

🏷️ Feature Request Type

Other

🔖 Feature description

Some certificates are valid according to Kuma, but violate the RFC 6962 Certificate Transparency policy, which is not allowed to continue on Chrome.

Refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6962 for details on this policy.

✔️ Solution

Support RFC 6962 validation on certificates.

Alternatives

No response

📝 Additional Context

No response

Originally created by @felix021 on GitHub (Oct 23, 2024). ### 📑 I have found these related issues/pull requests - Issue #4687 mentioned `Certificate transparency monitor` but it's not quite convenient to deploy two services and maintain the list separately. ### 🏷️ Feature Request Type Other ### 🔖 Feature description Some certificates are valid according to Kuma, but violate the RFC 6962 Certificate Transparency policy, which is not allowed to continue on Chrome. Refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6962 for details on this policy. ### ✔️ Solution Support RFC 6962 validation on certificates. ### ❓ Alternatives _No response_ ### 📝 Additional Context _No response_
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/uptime-kuma#3688
No description provided.