<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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:"Calibri Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 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:"Times New Roman \,serif";}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2F5496;
font-style:italic;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:299269555;
mso-list-template-ids:477505916;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:355470520;
mso-list-template-ids:477505916;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:386926068;
mso-list-template-ids:477505916;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:959187706;
mso-list-template-ids:477505916;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:1045064195;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1308285288 1729892192 536870915 536870917 536870913 536870915 536870917 536870913 536870915 536870917;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-start-at:3;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0D8;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l4:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l4:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l4:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l4:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l4:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l4:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:1546019199;
mso-list-template-ids:477505916;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></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-SE link="#0563C1" vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>> T</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>here is nothing preventing the CA to revoke a certificate right away. Revoking a certificate <b>at current time</b> has absolutely no impact on existing signed malware. The impact assessment affects cases of backdating the revocation. I'm afraid this "SHOULD" is just going to be ignored, unless you feel that the CA has enough evidence to backdate revoke a certificate and does not want to wait for an impact assessment of affected Relying Parties by the Subscriber. If it's the latter, I agree but we need to write it a bit clearer.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>That latter case is indeed the one I’d like to address. I’ll take a look at appropriate language for it.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Yes. 7 days seem reasonable to pause the revocation process waiting for a response from the Application Software Supplier but IMO no more than that.<br><br></span><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>No objection from my end with that approach, but I would then like to combine bullet 2 and 3 into one since they are strongly connected. It takes away any doubt in interpretation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I’ll get on adding these changes in GH<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo@harica.gr> <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 24 January 2023 16:25<br><b>To:</b> Martijn Katerbarg <martijn.katerbarg@sectigo.com>; cscwg-public@cabforum.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 24/1/2023 11:47 π.μ., Martijn Katerbarg wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks for the proposal Dimitris.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I have a few remarks on this:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>“<i>The CA SHALL request the Subscriber to respond with an impact assessment of affected Relying Parties if the revocation date is set before the time that the Private Key became compromised or likely used to sign Suspect Code, and to state the associated Application Software Supplier(s).”</i><br>I’d like to propose we change this into:<br>“<i>The CA SHALL request the Subscriber to respond with an acknowledgement and SHOULD request the Subscriber to respond with an impact assessment of affected Relying Parties if the revocation date is set before the time that the Private Key became compromised or likely used to sign Suspect Code, and to state the associated Application Software Supplier(s).</i>”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>This offers CA’s the option not to request an impact assessment if they deem the evidence clear enough warranting revocation right away. </span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><br>There is nothing preventing the CA to revoke a certificate right away. Revoking a certificate <b>at current time</b> has absolutely no impact on existing signed malware. The impact assessment affects cases of backdating the revocation. I'm afraid this "SHOULD" is just going to be ignored, unless you feel that the CA has enough evidence to backdate revoke a certificate and does not want to wait for an impact assessment of affected Relying Parties by the Subscriber. If it's the latter, I agree but we need to write it a bit clearer.<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I’m also wondering on the interpretation of the following 2 clauses:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>“<i>2. Based on the feedback received, the CA MAY determine a more appropriate revocation date to be associated with the revocation of the Certificate.</i></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>3. The CA SHALL revoke the Certificate within 7 days after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report.</span></i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I like to think this means that even with a plan submitted to the Application Software Suppliers, revocation MUST occur no later than 7 days after the CPR was received. Is that what you also intend here?</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><br>Yes. 7 days seem reasonable to pause the revocation process waiting for a response from the Application Software Supplier but IMO no more than that.<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><br>In my option that should be the maximum time before revocation needs to happen, however, it feels like the whole impact assessment may be a lot of work for a Subscriber, in order to only get 48 hours of extra time before a revocation needs to happen (Although to be fair these may be the very few edge cases, for which it could be useful). <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thoughts?</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><br>We may need some more feedback from CAs that have actually experienced such cases. From my perspective, 48 hours for an quick impact assessment, seems reasonable considering the impact of a malware to millions of users worldwide that could be stopped by a single backdate revocation action from the CA.<br><br><br>Thanks,<br>Dimitris.<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> 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> Thursday, 15 December 2022 14:27<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 12/15/2022 11:59 AM, Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>All,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>We had a good discussion on the malware proposal during the last call. I believe we’re nearly there. Trevoli and Tim you had suggestions (and thank you Dean for spelling it out in the minutes!) to make is more clear and also allow for the exceptional cases where revoking a CS cert would do more damage then not. <br><br>Based on this, it seems we were leaning into making the following changes:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><br>Change:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> a. If the Subscriber responds within 72 hours, the CA and Subscriber MAY determine a "reasonable date" to revoke the certificate. The revocation date MUST NOT be more than 7 calendar days after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report.<br>Into:<br> a. If the Subscriber responds within 72 hours, the CA MAY determine a "reasonable date" to revoke the certificate. The CA:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:54.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>MUST revoke the certificate no later than 7 calendar days after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report; or,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:54.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>MUST submit a plan for revocation to all Application Software Suppliers based on discussions with the Subscriber no later than 7 calendar days after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><br>Thoughts on this?<br>The one thought I have on this is, are Application Software Suppliers (i.e Certificate Consumers, but that’s not a CSCBR defined term) willing to take on these plans and provide responses to the CA? <br>Cause if they don’t, it seems we again have a loop hole in which revocation can be done much later based upon subscriber request…</span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><br>I have the same concerns with the second bullet. And how do we determine "all" Suppliers? CAs have no visibility on Relying Party software.<br><br>I believe that the reason to "contact negatively-affected Application Software Suppliers" is to determine the proper "reasonable date" that would invalidate the malware signatures and not affect other "good signatures" that would have a significant impact on Relying Parties. If there is no response from the Application Software Supplier, the CA should revoke with a "reasonable date" based on its investigation at the time.<br><br>Please take a look at the following proposal. I'd appreciate feedback and language improvements to describe the process accurately and safely in order to protect Relying Parties from executing Suspect Code as much as possible. Worse case, CAs will revoke the Certificate with a revocation date set at the time of the revocation event which does not affect any previously signed code, including the Suspect Code which will be executed successfully by Relying Parties even after the revocation of the Certificate.</span><o:p></o:p></p><h4><i>4.9.1.3 Revocation Based on Reported or Detected Compromise or Use in Suspect Code</i><o:p></o:p></h4><p><i>Except for cases that fall under Section 4.9.1.1, if, while investigating a Certificate Problem Report, the CA determines the Subscriber's Private Key is compromised or likely being used for Suspect Code, the CA SHALL revoke the corresponding Code Signing Certificate in accordance with and within the following maximum time frames. Nothing herein prohibits a CA from revoking a Code Signing Certificate prior to these time frames.</i><o:p></o:p></p><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>The CA SHALL contact the Subscriber within 24 hours after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report, notifying that the Certificate is scheduled to be revoked with a revocation date set before the time that the Private Key became compromised or likely used to sign Suspect Code. This revocation date is set in the past to prevent Relying Parties from executing Suspect Code signed with the affected Code Signing Certificate.</span></i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>The CA SHALL request the Subscriber to respond with an impact assessment of affected Relying Parties if the revocation date is set before the time that the Private Key became compromised or likely used to sign Suspect Code, and to state the associated Application Software Supplier(s).</span></i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>The CA SHALL request the Subscriber to respond to the CA within 72 hours of the CA sending the notification. </span></i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>If the Subscriber responds within 72 hours, </span></i><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>then based on the Subscriber's impact assessment:</span></i><o:p></o:p></li></ol><ol start=4 type=1><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo2'><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>the CA MAY submit a revocation plan to associated Application Software Suppliers no later than 7 calendar days after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report. The revocation plan:</span></i><o:p></o:p></li></ol></ol><ol start=4 type=1><ol start=1 type=1><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level3 lfo2'><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>SHALL contain informing about the planned revocation date to be set for the to-be-revoked Certificate; and</span></i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level3 lfo2'><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>SHALL request suggestions for a "more appropriate" revocation date in case the proposed revocation date has a significant impact on Relying Parties associated with that particular Application Software Supplier. </span></i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level3 lfo2'><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>The CA SHALL request the Application Software Supplier to respond within 72 hours.</span></i><o:p></o:p></li></ol></ol></ol><ol start=4 type=1><ol start=2 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo2'><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>Based on the feedback received, the CA MAY determine a more appropriate revocation date to be associated with the revocation of the Certificate.</span></i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level2 lfo2'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>The CA SHALL revoke the Certificate within 7 days after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report.</span></i><o:p></o:p></li></ol></ol><ol start=5 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'>If the CA does not receive a response from the Subscriber, then the CA SHALL revoke the Certificate within 24 hours from the end of the response period.</span></i><o:p></o:p></li></ol><p><i>A CA revoking a Certificate because the Certificate was associated with signed Suspect Code or other fraudulent or illegal conduct SHOULD provide all relevant information and risk indicators to other CAs, Application Software Suppliers, or industry groups. The CA SHOULD contact the Application Software Suppliers within 24 hours after the CA received the Certificate Problem Report.</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><br>Thanks,<br>Dimitris.<br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Note: I won’t be able to attend todays call, but feel free to discuss.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> 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> Tuesday, 29 November 2022 10:13<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 28/11/2022 2:50 μ.μ., Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>All, </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I just pushed a new commit (<a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%2Fcommits%2F8e7e3b4e57960994edea267f0e753358aad99574&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846038185%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=su4UQFbqpT1s8GvJ5kH%2BM6LKbWjD%2F4ezud1zI2OuwnU%3D&reserved=0">https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/commits/8e7e3b4e57960994edea267f0e753358aad99574</a>) based on the discussions and comments I’ve had and received. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The complete ballot “redline” in GitHub is available for review on </span><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%2Ffiles&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846038185%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FJeO1%2BawREvNZ3ulTEXkFtrLrUX8ehMUSsac8J18tzo%3D&reserved=0">https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/files</a></span><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><br>If the CA confirms that a Subscriber has signed "Suspect Code", how would the group feel with a proposal to require CAs to <b>backdate revoke</b> the Code Signing Certificate to a date and time that would neutralize the Suspect Code? If this date and time is unlikely to be determined, backdate revoke 1'' after the notBefore date and time of the Code Signing Certificate?<br><br><br>Thanks,<br>Dimitris.<br><br><br><br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Cscwg-public <a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org"><cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, 26 September 2022 11:58<br><b>To:</b> Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr"><dzacharo@harica.gr></a>; <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thank you Dimitris. That makes sense. I’ve pushed an update to the draft-PR</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> 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> Friday, 23 September 2022 18:47<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>I posted some proposed changes for consistency and accuracy.</span><o:p></o:p></p><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo3'><span lang=en-SE><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%23pullrequestreview-1118760785&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846194414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XX%2BO4N2vdyMETGjerXdv7xD7q2y4PnnyPq69ghdeAEY%3D&reserved=0">https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10#pullrequestreview-1118760785</a></span><o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=en-SE><br>Thanks,<br>Dimitris.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>On 23/9/2022 3:55 μ.μ., Bruce Morton via Cscwg-public wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>Hi Martjin,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>I will endorse the ballot.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>Thanks, Bruce.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=en-SE>From:</span></b><span lang=en-SE> Cscwg-public <a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org"><cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 23, 2022 3:44 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=en-SE><hr size=1 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>All,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>As discussed on yesterdays call, the latest changes which Tim and I were discussing are pushed into Github. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The complete change can be found at <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%2Ffiles&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846194414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0t20NCshSgV4JdwR9Yf%2B4Puel3rBO%2BheN5R63pFiSa8%3D&reserved=0">https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/files</a> for review.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Bruce, Ian, since I earlier had your endorsements, please let me know if they still stand. The changes since the endorsements, are captured in <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%2Fcommits%2F90fa38ab4dc5e5f9b25fce844b750d693f7256b7&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846194414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=g7sT5FZDuqA%2BHFotZE1KuBJUb%2FAvfuampeTZ2FT8OmY%3D&reserved=0">https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/commits/90fa38ab4dc5e5f9b25fce844b750d693f7256b7</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If there are no other comments, then hopefully we can start a ballot process on this.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><br>Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Martijn</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=en-SE>From:</span></b><span lang=en-SE> Cscwg-public <<a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org">cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 19 July 2022 09:22<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] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>Thanks Tim,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt'><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><ol style='margin-top:0cm' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4'><span lang=en-SE>What is the motivation for allowing a waiver if approved by just “at least one” of the stakeholders, instead of all of them?</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4'><span lang=en-SE>I’m a bit concerned that language might be increasingly troublesome as we continue to expand the scope and participation of this group.</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>I believe it might be difficult to get approval from all stakeholders within a certain amount of time, meaning the CA would possibly never get all approvals, and never be able to utilize the waiver. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>Considering that signed code is often (but not exclusively) targeted for a specific platform, stakeholders of other platforms might not be inclined to give approval for something that does not even affect them. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>I do share your concern, but I also don’t see a better path towards the same goal.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><ol style='margin-top:0cm' start=3 type=1><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4'><span lang=en-SE>Similarly, I’m unsure how I feel about making compliance distinctions based on whether a particular root program has decided to have a contractual relationship with its issuers or not. That seems like an implementation detail of the relationship that the guidelines should remain silent on. But I appreciate what that definition is intended to do, and would like to perhaps find a different way to express the same intent.</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Good point, and maybe the word “contract” is too much here?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Although I would note this language is already part of the “Certificate Beneficiaries” definition right now.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I’m open for a different suggestion </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=en-SE>From:</span></b><span lang=en-SE> Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 15 July 2022 18:18<br><b>To:</b> Martijn Katerbarg <<a href="mailto:martijn.katerbarg@sectigo.com">martijn.katerbarg@sectigo.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:solid black 1.0pt;padding:2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt 2.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;background:#FAFA03'><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>What is the motivation for allowing a waiver if approved by just “at least one” of the stakeholders, instead of all of them?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>I’m a bit concerned that language might be increasingly troublesome as we continue to expand the scope and participation of this group.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>Similarly, I’m unsure how I feel about making compliance distinctions based on whether a particular root program has decided to have a contractual relationship with its issuers or not. That seems like an implementation detail of the relationship that the guidelines should remain silent on. But I appreciate what that definition is intended to do, and would like to perhaps find a different way to express the same intent.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>-Tim</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=en-SE>From:</span></b><span lang=en-SE> Cscwg-public <<a href="mailto:cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org">cscwg-public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 27, 2022 10:04 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cscwg-public@cabforum.org">cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>All,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>As already hinted during the last meeting during the F2F, Ian and I, have been working on a proposal affecting the guidelines regarding malware based revocation.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>The intent of this change is to:</span><o:p></o:p></p><ol style='margin-top:0cm' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5'><span lang=en-SE>Limit the number of days before a certificate needs to be revoked, especially when the subscriber is not responding to inquiries</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5'><span lang=en-SE>Remove the OCSP log analysis requirements</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo5'><span lang=en-SE>Simplify the process that has to be followed</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>I have attached 3 documents: one with the current language, one with the proposed language, as well as a redlined version.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>The changes have been made based on upcoming version 3.0 of the CSCBRs. In case you wish to compare with version 2.8, the relevant section is 13.1.5.3. Besides to that section, there is also a change to the “Suspect Code” definition, as well as a new definition in the proposal.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>Once <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F6&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846194414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4paT4Lb%2F70BqliGMY8ev84oAl0tCRa8rUeHB2UV9PQY%3D&reserved=0">PR6</a> has been merged, I will also prepare the changes in GIT for those that prefer comparing there.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE>Looking forward to comments to this and move towards a potential ballot.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Martijn</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><i><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'>Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. <u>Please notify Entrust immediately</u> and delete the message from your system.</span></i><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><pre><span lang=en-SE>_______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span lang=en-SE>Cscwg-public mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span lang=en-SE><a href="mailto:Cscwg-public@cabforum.org">Cscwg-public@cabforum.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span lang=en-SE><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcscwg-public&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846194414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EZPaL8i%2F5Nu8TuTq6Il8Q1%2FL5dETN%2F4ZVnwhkGSRU8s%3D&reserved=0">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=en-SE style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><br><br><br><br></span><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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcscwg-public&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846194414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EZPaL8i%2F5Nu8TuTq6Il8Q1%2FL5dETN%2F4ZVnwhkGSRU8s%3D&reserved=0">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'><br><br><br></span><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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcscwg-public&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Ce659b9687b6944290f0908dafe1f1b69%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638101706846194414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EZPaL8i%2F5Nu8TuTq6Il8Q1%2FL5dETN%2F4ZVnwhkGSRU8s%3D&reserved=0">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman ,serif",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>