<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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">This is precisely why we need to review and update Signing Service.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I thought the premise of the Signing Service was for a service to both generate the key and permit activation of the key.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I don’t recall the background and agree that it doesn’t make sense. Hopefully our work on the Signing Service will fix these issues.<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 <cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Corey Bonnell via Cscwg-public<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 13, 2021 1:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> cscwg-public@cabforum.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [Cscwg-public] Question about "Certificates transported outside of a Signing Service"<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<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 class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m currently working through the CSBRs and moving the content into RFC 3647 format and I encountered a requirement that is unclear. Section 10.2.4 (Subscriber Private key) states:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“For Certificates transported outside of a Signing Service’s secure infrastructure, the CA or Signing
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Service MUST require, by contract, each Subscriber to generate their own Private Key and protect
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the Private Key in accordance with Section 16.2 (“Private Key Protection”).”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Certificates are bundled with signed binaries, so they by necessity will be “transported outside a Signing Service’s secure infrastructure”. So I believe this requirement, as written, doesn’t make a lot of sense. It may be speaking to Private
keys instead of Certificates, which may make more sense, but still isn’t clear. If the Subscriber is required to generate a key pair after migrating their private key out of a Signing Service, they won’t be able to use their current Certificate for future
signing operations (since they key pair will have changed). The net result of this reading is that key export from a Signing Service would not be allowed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It appears this language has been around for some time (it exists as-is in v1.2). Does anyone have any insight into what this requirement is attempting to convey?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Corey<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#686869"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>