<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: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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
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";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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 style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I think what Corey is trying to point out is that EVG 11.6 is weaker than the OV CSBR requirement, so it in itself does not cover the EVCS gap we identified.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><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, July 27, 2021 12:35 AM<br><b>To:</b> Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell@digicert.com>; cscwg-public@cabforum.org; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] New companies and EV Code Signing<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 27/7/2021 1:13 π.μ., Corey Bonnell wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Dimitris,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Perhaps I’m missing some context, but any of the four verification options set forth in EVG 11.6.2 will satisfy 11.6 (and in turn, CSBR 11.2.7). Several of the verification options listed in that section do not provide the level of assurance that the CSBRs prescribe for individuals in section 11.1.2.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>With this in mind, I believe that harmonizing the individual vetting for new organizations requirement for OVCS with EVCS is a useful improvement.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>Certainly, but that's not the topic we were discussing with Tim, which was around the "3 years of existence" requirement for an organization to be validated.<br><br>Dimitris.<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Corey<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>Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Cscwg-public<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 24, 2021 4:13 AM<br><b>To:</b> Tim Hollebeek <a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com"><tim.hollebeek@digicert.com></a>; <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] New companies and EV Code Signing<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 22/7/2021 7:11 μ.μ., Tim Hollebeek via Cscwg-public wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m hearing from our code signing validation people that 11.1.1, which refers to non-EV CS certificates, has a requirement for additional validation for companies less than three years old (we’ve discussed this recently), but this requirement is missing for EV code signing certificates.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Is that what we want? It seems very odd that a higher level of validation has fewer requirements.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>Hi Tim,<br><br>For EV CS certificates there is a direct reference to the EV Guidelines. Specifically, 11.2.7 of the CSBRs point to EVG 11.6.<br><br>EVG 11.6.2 includes language for companies less than three years old. I recall bringing this up in one of the previous calls where it was pointed out that it's not necessary for a company to be less than 3 years old if the other verification methods described in 11.6.2 are used.<br><br>Hope this helps.<br><br>Dimitris.<br><br><br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1D1C1D;background:#F8F8F8'>-Tim</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><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://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>