<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Dimitris,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Good point that it is risky using the BRs, but that was the way that the CSBRs were originally written. The same might be said about the EV Guidelines.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think that this might be best addressed if we move the CSBRs to RFC 3647 format. After which, we review the CSBRs to either confirm that the section of the BRs if fine or the CSBRs should be updated.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t believe that we should eliminate the BRs. The reason is that there are some items that we want to be the same to help ensure consistency across offerings and operations. For instance, we have one Subscriber Agreement for all certificates,
so we would not want the documents to conflict with each other on these requirements. I also assume that we create root CAs to support many certificate types, so root key generation should be the same for all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It would be good if we could close any important items before going through this project. I think that it would be best if we could get the subscriber key generation/protection/audit ballot done first.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks, Bruce.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo@harica.gr>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 2, 2021 12:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Adriano Santoni <adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it>; cscwg-public@cabforum.org; Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton@entrust.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Suspension of code signing certs<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
This interpretation is very risky because the BRs were not developed with code signing in mind but with TLS Certificates. I believe the working group should focus on finding areas that are in the BRs, don't exist in the CSBRs but are considered meaningful for
code signing certificates and update the CSBRs. This will avoid any ambiguities about the expectations and keep CAs and auditors focused on one document with direct references to TLS BRs and EV Guidelines.<br>
<br>
For example, in 17.5 of the CSBRs, we have clear requirements for EV Code Signing Certificates. Does this mean that 8.7 of the BRs applies and this requirement is also applicable for the non-EV Code Signing Certificates? One is explicitly called out and the
other is implicit according to this interpretation.<br>
<br>
Similarly for the <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/main/docs/BR.md*722-crl-and-crl-entry-extensions__;Iw!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!KXIOcoWJx5dE6sqoBkQJNaMOEeSvD_TggxYHH8QDL11Vr-0pB1zooot9p1bigHR3YZA$">
CRL profile</a> and many other cases. These were recent changes to the TLS BRs. Are they implicit requirements for code signing certificates?<br>
<br>
I believe we should discuss and clarify this issue soon.<br>
<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2/2/2021 6:47 μ.μ., Adriano Santoni via Cscwg-public wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Thank you Bruce.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>That answers my doubt, although indirectly, and I agree with your interpretation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I am not sure if it is worth to explicitate this in the CSBR ....<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Adriano<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Il 02/02/2021 14:56, Bruce Morton ha scritto:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">The CSBRs state, “Except where specifically stated or in the event of conflict in which case these Requirements will prevail,
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">this document incorporates by reference the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates (“Baseline Requirements”)</span>, the Network and Certificate System Security
Requirements and, in the case of EV Code Signing Certificates, the Guidelines For The Issuance And Management of Extended Validation Certificates as established by the CA/Browser Forum, copies of which are available on the CA/Browser Forum’s website at
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.cabforum.org__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!KXIOcoWJx5dE6sqoBkQJNaMOEeSvD_TggxYHH8QDL11Vr-0pB1zooot9p1biqVQaYfI$">
www.cabforum.org</a>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The CSBRs do not state any requirements about suspension of code signing certificates.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">BR 4.9.13 states, “The Repository MUST NOT include entries that indicate that a Certificate is suspended.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My conclusion is that suspension of code signing certificates is not supported by the CSBRs. If there is agreement, we could make an update to the CSBRs to make this clear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bruce.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Cscwg-public <a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org">
<cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Adriano Santoni via Cscwg-public<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [Cscwg-public] Suspension of code signing certs<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.<br>
DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p>All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>this is probably an old matter, but I could not solve my doubts browsing the past posts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I suppose, but I am not certain, that - as for SSL Server certificates - Code Signing certificates must not be suspended (that is, there must not be a CRLReason "certificateHold" in a CRL entry). But maybe I am wrong, as I cannot find the relevant language
in the Code Signing BR. Anybody, please point me at the right spot in the document.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>TIA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Adriano<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Il 01/02/2021 10:32, Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Cscwg-public ha scritto:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
According to the requirements, and section 13.2.1: <br>
<br>
"CAs MUST provide OCSP responses for Code Signing Certificates and Timestamp Certificates for the time period specified in their CPS, which MUST be at least 10 years after the expiration of the certificate"
<br>
<br>
However, according to Certificate Consumer policies, either CRL or OCSP is required to be used.
<br>
<br>
I would like to ask for Members to consider requiring either CRL or OCSP information to be required in end-entity certificates used for Time-stamping. The rationale is that Time-stamping Certificates are very few compared to other end-entity certificates and
CRLs should be considered sufficient because their size is not significant. <br>
<br>
Please let me know your thoughts, concerns or objections. <br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you, <br>
Dimitris. <br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Cscwg-public mailing list <br>
<a href="mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org">Cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a> <br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!KXIOcoWJx5dE6sqoBkQJNaMOEeSvD_TggxYHH8QDL11Vr-0pB1zooot9p1biIl3XcW0$">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Cscwg-public mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org">Cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!KXIOcoWJx5dE6sqoBkQJNaMOEeSvD_TggxYHH8QDL11Vr-0pB1zooot9p1biIl3XcW0$">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>