<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)"><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;}
/* 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><b>FINAL MINUTES<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Code Signing Working Group: 15-Dec-2022<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Attendees:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Andrea Holland, , Brianca Martin, , Bruce Morton, Corey Bonnell, Dean Coclin, Dimitris Zacharopoulos, Inigo Barreira, Michael Sykes Mohit Kumar, Rollin Yu, Tim Crawford, Trevoli Ponds-White<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Antitrust statement was read.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Minutes approved for last meeting 1-Dec-22 and F2F.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>There was discussion on how we can make minutes more effective – in general with a suggestion on recapping along discussion by chair or minute taker for summary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Ballot around Malware protection:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Updates made to draft to suggest that subscriber can provide a different date based on impact. And also, software application provider can check for possible impact. Based on these 2, CA can decide on revocation date. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>It was mentioned that section 4 is confusing and not clear. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Clarification provided that if CA receives a report of malware being signed, they will report it to subscriber. If subscriber reports within 72 hours, CAs can do impact assessment else they have to revoke in 24 hours. In any case, CA has to revoke in 7 days<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Alternate proposal was presented that if subscriber or Software application asks CA to revoke, it should be revoked in 24 hours else in 7 days.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The critical element of the actual process is deciding what will be the revocation date i.e. the back date from which we expect malware to be signed. For this reason, we had procedure for impact analysis.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>CA should have date of previously signed suspected code or evidence to show that private key was compromised. That way we can backdate the revocation <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>If we go to the back date of issue of certificate, then it impacts all the drivers signed till date so CA need a different timestamp. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Need to be improved and discussion to be kept in progress. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Signing Service:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>No updates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Removing SSL BRs references:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Concerns highlighted in redline in Github. Pull request to be shared with the group.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Next meeting will be on 12-Jan-23<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0174C3'>Dean Coclin<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0174C3'>CSCWG Chair<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>