<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/3/2014 9:32 PM, Jeremy Rowley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:015301cf08ba$9a6ae630$cf40b290$@digicert.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (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: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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe Script";
panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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";
color:windowtext;}
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.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Sorry
– I got the discussion a bit off-track. </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
issue is not whether domain names are vetted, but the fact
that the BRs do not clearly define what certs are covered.
There is a significant gray area on when certificates are
exempt from the BRs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
requiring the BR/EV OID is not a possibility, I’d define the
scope as any certificate that either (i) specifies a domain
name in the CN field or subjectAltName extension and
includes the anyEKU or serverAuth or omits an EKU or (ii) is
intended to enable SSL/TLS, as evidenced by inclusion of the
serverAuth EKU. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Once again, relying on BR/EV OID would be really good solution.<br>
<br>
Jeremy, to my understanding RFC 5280 accepts anyEKU only in
combination with any other EKU but not as the only EKU:<br>
<br>
“Certificates using applications MAY require that the extended key
usage extension be present and that a particular purpose be
indicated in order for the certificate to be acceptable to that
application.<br>
<p>If a CA includes extended key usages to satisfy such
applications, but does not wish to restrict usages of the key, the
CA can include the special KeyPurposeId anyExtendedKeyUsage ***in
addition to the particular key purposes required by the
applications***.<br>
</p>
So based on this:<br>
SSL server: = SAN + serverAuth + [anyEKU+EKU]<br>
SSL client:= [SAN] +clientAuth + [anyEKU+EKU]<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
M.D.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:015301cf08ba$9a6ae630$cf40b290$@digicert.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Although
the definition needs word smithing, it captures the
certificates of primary concern (those containing domain
names) without excluding internal server name certs.
Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Jeremy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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">
Brown, Wendy (10421) [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:wendy.brown@protiviti.com">mailto:wendy.brown@protiviti.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 03, 2014 12:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeremy Rowley; 'Mads Egil Henriksveen';
'Moudrick M. Dadashov'; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [cabfpub] Definition of an SSL
certificate<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
requirement to verify is in the CP – the details of How goes
in the CPS.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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">
Jeremy Rowley [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com">mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 03, 2014 2:03 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Brown, Wendy (10421); 'Mads Egil
Henriksveen'; 'Moudrick M. Dadashov'; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [cabfpub] Definition of an SSL
certificate<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks
Wendy for the clarification. However, I didn’t see anything
specifying how the CA is supposed to verify the domain. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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">
Brown, Wendy (10421) [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wendy.brown@protiviti.com">mailto:wendy.brown@protiviti.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 03, 2014 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeremy Rowley; 'Mads Egil Henriksveen';
'Moudrick M. Dadashov'; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [cabfpub] Definition of an SSL
certificate<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
FBCA and Common Policy CPs actually require all information
included in a certificate to be verified – so that would
include any domain names, see 3.2.4.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Segoe
Script","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Wendy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Segoe
Script","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Wendy
Brown<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">FPKIMA
Technical Liaison<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Protiviti
Government Services<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">703-299-4705
(office) 703-965-2990 (cell)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wendy.brown@fpki.gov">wendy.brown@fpki.gov</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wendy.brown@protiviti.com">wendy.brown@protiviti.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy Rowley<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 03, 2014 11:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Mads Egil Henriksveen'; 'Moudrick M.
Dadashov'; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Definition of an SSL
certificate<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Many
of the trusted QC issuers (and other community issuers) are
not involved in the CAB Forum. Although you are aware of
the requirements, I don’t think this knowledge is global.
For example, I don’t think the NIST CP or FBCA CP ever
mentions domain validation. A CA following either CP for
client certs wouldn’t necessarily validate an included
domain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Jeremy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mads Egil Henriksveen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 03, 2014 4:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Moudrick M. Dadashov; Jeremy Rowley; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Definition of an SSL
certificate<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi
Moudrick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">There
might not be a real use case for including a domain name in
a QC, but as a trusted CA we take the responsibility for the
accuracy of information in all certs we issue. And that was
my point and why I am not very concerned about the described
attack scenario. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Mads<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Moudrick M. Dadashov<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 3. januar 2014 11:51<br>
<b>To:</b> Mads Egil Henriksveen; Jeremy Rowley; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Definition of an SSL
certificate<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NO-BOK"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NO-BOK">Mads,<br>
<br>
On 1/3/2014 11:49 AM, Mads Egil Henriksveen wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span
lang="NO-BOK"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
attack scenario assumes that the QC can be chained to a
root cert in a trusted CA root store. This means that the
CA should know the root store requirements and should be
aware of the risk issuing any cert that could be used as
an SSL certificate. </span><span lang="NO-BOK"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span
lang="NO-BOK"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Buypass
do issue both QC and SSL certificates and with the
DigiNotar attack back in 2011 we realized that the
browsers do accept a lot of certificates as SSL
certificates. Since then we have had strict controls to
ensure that no certificate is issued with an unverified
domain name. I guess most of the trusted QC issuers who
also issue SSL certificates are aware of this, I would not
be very concerned about this attack scenario. </span><span
lang="NO-BOK"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="NO-BOK">What is the use case when in a QC we'd need a
[any/unverified] domain name? (aren't CAs responsible for
the accuracy of information in the QCs they issue?). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span
lang="NO-BOK"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">However,
I do support the idea of a technical definition of an SSL
certificate and I like the proposal from Ryan Hurst
requiring the BR/EV OIDs. </span><span lang="NO-BOK"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NO-BOK">Under ETSI framework
compliance assumes two things: compliance with the
corresponding requirements plus certificate profile
compliance. These two categories exist as separate documents
(under their own ETSI IDs).<br>
Ryan's proposal is definitely a good step forward, I'd vote
with my both hands if we go even further, and like ETSI,
have separate BR/EV profile specifications.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
M.D.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">NOTICE:
Protiviti is a global consulting and internal audit firm
composed of experts specializing in risk and advisory
services. Protiviti is not licensed or registered as a
public accounting firm and does not issue opinions on
financial statements or offer attestation services. <br>
<br>
This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message,
together with any attachment, may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any views, opinions or conclusions
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and do not necessarily reflect the views of Protiviti Inc.
or its affiliates. Any unauthorized review, use, printing,
copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately advise the sender by reply email message
to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank
you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>