<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 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.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 bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I don’t agree that the existence of 60 month certs has delayed improvements to the SSL ecosystem – I don’t remember it ever coming up except when we drafted BR 9.2.1 itself setting a sunset date for issuance
of 60 month certs at Nov. 1, 2015 (as I recall, this was at the suggestion of PayPay). Can you cite any other examples where 60 month certs delayed an improvement?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Certainly the existence of 60 month certs has not prevented Microsoft from deprecating SHA1 as of Jan. 1, 2017, which will kill all SHA1 60 month certs issued since Jan. 1, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">And if the existence of 60 month certs limits our ability to implement improvements – isn’t the same true for 39 month certs? Extending that logic, why not reduce maximum certificate duration to 13 months
so we can implement changes quickly?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">In many cases, the transition periods we adopt are not just for the convenience of the CAs, but also for their customers who may have legacy systems that depend on the previous product. As others have said,
when there is a clear security need, we should not hesitate to implement new requirements quickly, even immediately, regardless of the effect on issued certs. That condition is not present here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Along with improving our industry, we should also aim for stability of the rules so we are not reversing prior decisions on short notice without good reason. We are more likely to get uniform compliance that
way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Having said this, if the CAs that issue 60 month certs are happy with shortening the current end date of BR 9.2.1 to an earlier date (whether or not it coincides with the deprecation date for SHA1), we don’t
object. But in my opinion, we should not get into the habit of abrupt rule changes without a clear need.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy Rowley<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 29, 2013 12:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'CABFPub'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 111 - Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">60 month certs have limited the Forum’s ability to create improvements ever since we starting discussing the BRs, and practically every significant change we make includes a discussion about what do to accommodate
long-lived certs. Several the results of these discussions, and barrier to change, are evident in the BRs themselves (issuance from a root, the internal server name deprecation date, etc). By eliminating long lived certs, the Forum eliminates one of the major
obstacles in improving the industry, permitting the Forum to become the primary proponent for improvements instead of the browsers (ie, instead of Microsoft announcing that SHA2 is required for all certs three years from now, the Forum could have passed a
BR requirement to the same effect).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Plus, the code signing working group focuses heavily on private key protection. During the discussions, the group estimated that 50% of the problem certificates resulted from stolen or compromised private keys.
I imagine the problem is just as bad for SSL. Add on top of that the fact that five-year old information is extremely stale and has likely changed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Jeremy <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>kirk_hall@trendmicro.com<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.); CABFPub<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 111 - Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Well, so far the existence of 60 month certs has not stopped the browsers from imposing new requirements on CAs and certificates that have an immediate effect on all certs (60 month and 39 month certs alike)
– some browsers have even taken the position that new rules in the BRs adopted in July 2012 and made effective in February 2013 would apply *<b>retroactively</b>* to certs issued *<b>before</b>* those dates.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">So I don’t really think it’s true that the existence of 60 month certs issued by some CAs has ever limited changes made by the Forum, or their effective dates. Has it?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CABFPub<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 111 - Accelerate Max Certificate Lifetime Reduction Timetable<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 11/28/2013 10:53 PM, From <a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com:">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com:</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Are there any known security breaches from past-issued 60 month certs (such as someone stealing the private key plus using the cert beyond a 39 month expiration period,
someone selling an old server that had a private key plus 60-month cert on it, change of corporate identity during a five-year period that rendered a properly-issued 60-month cert inaccurate, but the cert was still used, etc.)? Or is the concern more theoretical?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br>
Kirk, if you read the responses from Bruce and Dean (and maybe some others) you understand that every time a change needs to be introduced you'll get opposition from exactly those CAs that issue long-living certificates. We all understand that CAs want to nail
a customer for as long as possible and make a difference by issuing certificates for long periods of time (irresponsible) because others won't do that - but since this requirement would be applied across the board I believe there will be no competitive disadvantage
to any of them.<br>
<br>
However the entire industry will improve once changes can be pushed through within ~ 3 years than currently 5 and previously 10. Being able to act faster and get rid of possible problematic certificates within the time-frame of 3 years without the need of revocation
(which would result in a another outcry anyway) is probably a worthy goal. With the current upcoming changes it appears to be a golden opportunity to achieve that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Regards <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Signer: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><a href="http://www.startcom.org">StartCom Ltd.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">XMPP: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><a href="xmpp:startcom@startcom.org">startcom@startcom.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Blog: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><a href="http://blog.startcom.org">Join the Revolution!</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Twitter: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><a href="http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg">Follow Me</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="background:white;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<table><tr><td bgcolor=#ffffff><font color=#000000><pre><table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
</pre></td></tr></table></pre></font></td></tr></table>