<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Calibri">If that is the correct interpretation of the
language in CSBR §16.3 (item 2)</font><font face="Calibri">,
than I agree with Tomas. Of course, in this case the scenario
changes, and we can probably find more devices on the market
meeting the minimum RSA length requirement.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">But that is not the normal interpretation of
what a certified </font><font face="Calibri">hardware crypto
module means. If the device is based on a Javacard platform,
say, it needs an applet installed on it to implement and export
its crypto and key management functionalities; in such a case,
the applet design is critical for the device to be truly secure,
and therefore the applet needs be certified as well. This can be
seen in plenty certification reports in
commoncriteriaportal.org. This is how things work in other (but
similar) contexts wherein a secure signature device is required,
e.g. in the eIDAS context.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">But if the CSCWG agrees, we can decide that
it's enough for the device to be based on a certified HW and OS.
Good or bad, it's a choice that the CSCWG can make. But then I
think the language in CSBR §16.3 should be clarified</font><font
face="Calibri">.</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">Adriano</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 18/03/2021 07:51, Tomas Gustavsson
via Cscwg-public ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01000178441ab51d-0c89ae36-1032-42c3-ab13-4cbbac1100f7-000000@email.amazonses.com"><br>
Related to certification...
<br>
<br>
The NitroKey supports RSA 1024-4096:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://shop.nitrokey.com/shop/product/nk-hsm-2-nitrokey-hsm-2-7">https://shop.nitrokey.com/shop/product/nk-hsm-2-nitrokey-hsm-2-7</a>
<br>
<br>
The complete device is not FIPS or CC certified, but the hardware
and operating system is:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nitrokey.com/documentation/frequently-asked-questions-faq#is-nitrokey-common-criteria-or-fips-certified">https://www.nitrokey.com/documentation/frequently-asked-questions-faq#is-nitrokey-common-criteria-or-fips-certified</a>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,
<br>
Tomas
<br>
<br>
On 2021-03-17 21:42, Ian McMillan via Cscwg-public wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Folks,
<br>
<br>
This key size effective date has already been delayed by 6
months. I am not keen on further delaying the requirement of
3072 keys for RSA due to a lack of tokens that support the
requirement in the CSBRs. As Bruce calls out, there are other
means to which subscribers can secure their private keys to meet
the requirements outside of a token provided by a CA. If this
change in key size is what pushes subscribers to use HSMs
(on-prem or cloud based services) or signing services, it may
serve as the call to action for token suppliers on a requirement
they have frankly seemed to have overlooked for some time now.
<br>
<br>
I’ll be interested to discuss how much additional time the group
feels is needed here, and how best we can help accelerate the
transition.
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
<br>
Ian
<br>
<br>
*From:* Cscwg-public <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org"><cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org></a>
*On Behalf Of *Adriano Santoni via Cscwg-public
<br>
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:31 AM
<br>
*To:* Bruce Morton <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Bruce.Morton@entrust.com"><Bruce.Morton@entrust.com></a>
<br>
*Cc:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>
<br>
*Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Re: Re FIPS tokens
supporting RSA 3072
<br>
<br>
Hi Bruce,
<br>
<br>
I certainly agree that - if the said token is the only device
available on the market meeting the said requirement, as it
seems to be the case -- we should promptly revise the effective
date (June 1st, just three months from now) of the transition to
3072 bits being mandatory for RSA keys.
<br>
<br>
If nothing else, because it would be a really bad thing to
impose a requirement that involves sourcing devices from a
single possible supplier, thereby favouring a monopoly. I hope
everyone agrees on this principle.
<br>
<br>
Adriano
<br>
<br>
Il 17/03/2021 16:45, Bruce Morton ha scritto:
<br>
<br>
Hi Adriano,
<br>
<br>
We should discuss this issue at the next meeting. I do think
that
<br>
there are options to using the SafeNet token, but that might
include
<br>
subscriber hosted HSM, public-cloud HSM or Signing Service
HSM.
<br>
<br>
I think we all understand that the options might be hard to
<br>
implement before 1 June 2021 deadline.
<br>
<br>
Bruce.
<br>
<br>
*From:* Cscwg-public
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org"><cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org></a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org"><mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org></a> *On Behalf
Of *Adriano
<br>
Santoni via Cscwg-public
<br>
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:18 AM
<br>
*To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org"><mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org></a>
<br>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Cscwg-public] Re FIPS tokens
supporting
<br>
RSA 3072
<br>
<br>
WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
<br>
DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the
sender and
<br>
know the content is safe.
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
I should have written "the only CC token", as the FIPS
version of
<br>
the said token does not support RSA > 2048 bit....
<br>
<br>
But my question remains (after replacing "FIPS" with "CC").
<br>
<br>
Adriano
<br>
<br>
Il 17/03/2021 16:08, Adriano Santoni via Cscwg-public ha
scritto:
<br>
<br>
I already posted this question yesterday, but apparently
it did
<br>
not get through.
<br>
<br>
I was asking: is the SafeNet eToken 5110 CC the only
FIPS token
<br>
supporting RSA 3072 available on the market?
<br>
<br>
I am investigating this matter myself, and although I am
not
<br>
finished it seems there aren't many... possibly just
one.
<br>
<br>
If so, it would be a rather unfortunate situation
competition-wise.
<br>
<br>
Adriano
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
<br>
Cscwg-public mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org">Cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org"><mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org></a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcscwg-public&data=04%7C01%7Cianmcm%40microsoft.com%7Cd99faf2ab770497a6a6908d8e9620f0b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637515954677826280%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=t9aEK4G0KBJ%2B2bZw6o7IRjLnLMACUJuSIegwRSV0ecc%3D&reserved=0"><https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcscwg-public&data=04%7C01%7Cianmcm%40microsoft.com%7Cd99faf2ab770497a6a6908d8e9620f0b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637515954677826280%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=t9aEK4G0KBJ%2B2bZw6o7IRjLnLMACUJuSIegwRSV0ecc%3D&reserved=0></a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Cscwg-public mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org">Cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Cscwg-public mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org">Cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>