Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(403)

Side by Side Diff: components/policy/core/common/cloud/cloud_policy_constants.cc

Issue 2606423002: Remove disable-policy-key-verification command line flag (Closed)
Patch Set: Created 3 years, 11 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 unified diff | Download patch
OLDNEW
1 // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved. 1 // Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be 2 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
3 // found in the LICENSE file. 3 // found in the LICENSE file.
4 4
5 #include "components/policy/core/common/cloud/cloud_policy_constants.h" 5 #include "components/policy/core/common/cloud/cloud_policy_constants.h"
6 6
7 #include <stdint.h> 7 #include <stdint.h>
8 8
9 #include "base/command_line.h" 9 #include "base/command_line.h"
10 #include "base/logging.h" 10 #include "base/logging.h"
(...skipping 80 matching lines...) Expand 10 before | Expand all | Expand 10 after
91 0x13, 0x04, 0x57, 0xC5, 0x85, 0xB6, 0x2A, 0x0F, 0x02, 0x46, 0x0D, 0x2D, 91 0x13, 0x04, 0x57, 0xC5, 0x85, 0xB6, 0x2A, 0x0F, 0x02, 0x46, 0x0D, 0x2D,
92 0xCA, 0xE3, 0x3F, 0x84, 0x9E, 0x8B, 0x8A, 0x5F, 0xFC, 0x4D, 0xAA, 0xBE, 92 0xCA, 0xE3, 0x3F, 0x84, 0x9E, 0x8B, 0x8A, 0x5F, 0xFC, 0x4D, 0xAA, 0xBE,
93 0xBD, 0xE6, 0x64, 0x9F, 0x26, 0x9A, 0x2B, 0x97, 0x69, 0xA9, 0xBA, 0x0B, 93 0xBD, 0xE6, 0x64, 0x9F, 0x26, 0x9A, 0x2B, 0x97, 0x69, 0xA9, 0xBA, 0x0B,
94 0xBD, 0x48, 0xE4, 0x81, 0x6B, 0xD4, 0x4B, 0x78, 0xE6, 0xAF, 0x95, 0x66, 94 0xBD, 0x48, 0xE4, 0x81, 0x6B, 0xD4, 0x4B, 0x78, 0xE6, 0xAF, 0x95, 0x66,
95 0xC1, 0x23, 0xDA, 0x23, 0x45, 0x36, 0x6E, 0x25, 0xF3, 0xC7, 0xC0, 0x61, 95 0xC1, 0x23, 0xDA, 0x23, 0x45, 0x36, 0x6E, 0x25, 0xF3, 0xC7, 0xC0, 0x61,
96 0xFC, 0xEC, 0x66, 0x9D, 0x31, 0xD4, 0xD6, 0xB6, 0x36, 0xE3, 0x7F, 0x81, 96 0xFC, 0xEC, 0x66, 0x9D, 0x31, 0xD4, 0xD6, 0xB6, 0x36, 0xE3, 0x7F, 0x81,
97 0x87, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01, 0x00, 0x01}; 97 0x87, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01, 0x00, 0x01};
98 98
99 const char kPolicyVerificationKeyHash[] = "1:356l7w"; 99 const char kPolicyVerificationKeyHash[] = "1:356l7w";
100 100
101 std::string GetPolicyVerificationKey() { 101 std::string GetPolicyVerificationKey() {
pmarko 2017/01/04 13:50:22 Do you think that we should still expose this as a
pastarmovj 2017/01/04 14:37:27 I think this function is still useful utility for
102 base::CommandLine* command_line = base::CommandLine::ForCurrentProcess(); 102 return std::string(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(kPolicyVerificationKey),
103 if (command_line->HasSwitch(switches::kDisablePolicyKeyVerification)) { 103 sizeof(kPolicyVerificationKey));
104 return std::string();
105 } else {
106 return std::string(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(kPolicyVerificationKey),
107 sizeof(kPolicyVerificationKey));
108 }
109 } 104 }
110 105
111 } // namespace policy 106 } // namespace policy
OLDNEW

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698