Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(1258)

Unified Diff: content/public/common/ssl_status.cc

Issue 1772603002: Addition of Certificate Transparency details to Security panel of DevTools (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master
Patch Set: removed some unnecessary includes and fixed order in net.gypi Created 4 years, 8 months ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View side-by-side diff with in-line comments
Download patch
Index: content/public/common/ssl_status.cc
diff --git a/content/public/common/ssl_status.cc b/content/public/common/ssl_status.cc
index 3490a81c46a0dd277a71d283f78ce4c8e8a94aa0..c04483c95aeba2f061076a8c05c9d221fd1ab322 100644
--- a/content/public/common/ssl_status.cc
+++ b/content/public/common/ssl_status.cc
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
#include "content/public/common/ssl_status.h"
+#include "net/cert/sct_status_flags.h"
#include "net/ssl/ssl_info.h"
namespace content {
@@ -20,8 +21,6 @@ SSLStatus::SSLStatus()
SSLStatus::SSLStatus(SecurityStyle security_style,
int cert_id,
- const SignedCertificateTimestampIDStatusList&
- signed_certificate_timestamp_ids,
const net::SSLInfo& ssl_info)
: security_style(security_style),
cert_id(cert_id),
@@ -30,7 +29,29 @@ SSLStatus::SSLStatus(SecurityStyle security_style,
key_exchange_info(ssl_info.key_exchange_info),
connection_status(ssl_info.connection_status),
content_status(NORMAL_CONTENT),
- signed_certificate_timestamp_ids(signed_certificate_timestamp_ids) {}
+ num_unknown_scts(0),
+ num_invalid_scts(0),
+ num_valid_scts(0) {
+ // Count unknown, invalid and valid SCTs.
+ for (const auto& sct_and_status : ssl_info.signed_certificate_timestamps) {
+ switch (sct_and_status.status) {
+ case net::ct::SCT_STATUS_LOG_UNKNOWN:
Eran Messeri 2016/04/26 09:29:51 Nit: would using count_if here (http://en.cpprefer
dwaxweiler 2016/04/28 07:46:20 Yes, it would be easier to read. So, is it okay to
+ num_unknown_scts++;
+ break;
+ case net::ct::SCT_STATUS_INVALID:
+ num_invalid_scts++;
+ break;
+ case net::ct::SCT_STATUS_OK:
+ num_valid_scts++;
+ break;
+ case net::ct::SCT_STATUS_NONE:
+ case net::ct::SCT_STATUS_MAX:
+ // These enum values do not represent SCTs that are taken into account
+ // for CT compliance calculations, so we ignore them.
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+}
SSLStatus::SSLStatus(const SSLStatus& other) = default;

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698