From ac6e8ac7e407887a18bca6c835f85e372a4d0932 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andras Timar Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:21:40 +0100 Subject: typo fixes in comments Change-Id: Idd49478d59cd062118fbf8e99d1c8bc5250013fc --- xmlsecurity/source/component/documentdigitalsignatures.cxx | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'xmlsecurity') diff --git a/xmlsecurity/source/component/documentdigitalsignatures.cxx b/xmlsecurity/source/component/documentdigitalsignatures.cxx index 0fa1b1c40cdb..bf64632a6d9f 100644 --- a/xmlsecurity/source/component/documentdigitalsignatures.cxx +++ b/xmlsecurity/source/component/documentdigitalsignatures.cxx @@ -313,8 +313,8 @@ DocumentDigitalSignatures::ImplVerifySignatures( // Verify certificate //We have patched our version of libxmlsec, so that it does not verify the certificates. This has two //reasons. First we want two separate status for signature and certificate. Second libxmlsec calls - //CERT_VerifyCertificate (solaris, linux) falsly, so that it always regards the certificate as valid. - //On Window the checking of the certificate path is buggy. It does name matching (issuer, subject name) + //CERT_VerifyCertificate (Solaris, Linux) falsely, so that it always regards the certificate as valid. + //On Windows the checking of the certificate path is buggy. It does name matching (issuer, subject name) //to find the parent certificate. It does not take into account that there can be several certificates //with the same subject name. if (rSigInfo.Signer.is()) @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ DocumentDigitalSignatures::ImplVerifySignatures( } else { - //We should always be aible to get the certificates because it is contained in the document, + //We should always be able to get the certificates because it is contained in the document, //unless the document is damaged so that signature xml file could not be parsed. rSigInfo.CertificateStatus = css::security::CertificateValidity::INVALID; } -- cgit