<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: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: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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
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";}
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";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
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:#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;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle31
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1780568821;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1870893420 -451092630 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:404;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Forwarded from Bruce Morton/Entrtust:</span></b><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></b></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'>First I am not a signing/hashing expert, but below is how I understand the problem. I would be happy to have any of the following corrected by an expert.<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'>I think the policy should consider that there could be a collision or a preimage/second-preimage attack and that there are SHA2 compatibility issues.<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'>Since a collision attack happens at the time the certificate is issued and a SHA1 collision attack could be feasible by the end of the decade, we need to stop signing with SHA1.<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'>However, a preimage/second preimage attack happens after the certificate has been issued and is orders of magnitude more difficult to implement. I am not aware of an estimated time when we should be concerned with preimage/second preimage attacks on SHA1, as such there is not a big rush to limit the validity period of a SHA1 signed certificate.<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'>I think the following should be considered:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Avoid collision by stopping to sign with SHA1 as of 1 January 2016 as Microsoft has advised in their policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Support transition to SHA2 by allowing SHA1 signed certificates to have the full validity period as stated in the BRs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Consider lengthening the transition period by allowing a longer validity period for SHA1 signatures for customers that can make the justification.<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'>I remember one of the CAB Forum members wrote an email that I think was called Hash Vulnerability 101. Some input from that member would help to finalize the policy.<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, Bruce.<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"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> public-bounces@cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ben Wilson<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:15 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Doug Beattie'; kirk_hall@trendmicro.com; 'CABFPub'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<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'>It would surprise me if we weren’t all in agreement on what we want, but the difficulty is putting formality to it in the words of a ballot. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Doug and Kirk,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Should the three of us take this offline and work through it together and bring a proposal back to the Forum?<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:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ben<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>(Also, as we all know, we can’t pass a ballot and walk away with “mission accomplished.” So, besides amendments to the Baseline Requirements, we need a sunset plan/strategy. I say that now so that we’ll remember that after this ballot passes.)<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"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <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>Doug Beattie<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 12, 2014 6:51 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a>; 'CABFPub'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<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'>Kirk and all,<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'>Since January 2017 is almost 3 years away, let’s not get too tangled up in the details of the SHA-1 deprecation. We need to set clear guidance, define requirements to limit the number of SHA-1 SSL certificates that will be valid well past January 2017, and be sure we all communicate the same (CABF) message to our user community. The details can be refined in 2015 and 2016 as we understand the implications on the global server/browser community and the impact on e-commerce/security as we formally deprecate SHA-1. We might need to perform a study on the impact of SHA-1 deprecation. It’s possible that we need to perform a phased roll-out with US/EMEA formally deprecating SHA-1 on one date (even earlier than Jan 2017), but APAC and other regions perhaps at a later date. Let’s promote SHA-2, drive adoption, understand operational limitations and then refine the plan.<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'>So, at this time, I’m in favor of:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Specifying shorter max validity periods for SHA-1 SSL certificates (1-year starting Jan 2015?)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Setting end dates for the creation of any new Root and Subordinate CAs with SHA-1<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Defining clear messaging to the user community regarding SHA-1<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Setting target dates for the next set of changes for improved security/performance (RSA-4096/ECC/SHA-512/etc)<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'>I’m against:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Specifying an exact date at which no SHA-1 certificates can be issued globally<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Specifying the detailed legacy exceptions for using SHA-1 after the sunset date<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'>Doug<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 #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <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><a href="mailto:kirk_hall@trendmicro.com">kirk_hall@trendmicro.com</a><br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:54 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'CABFPub'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<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"'>I’m still thinking this through, but my current opinion is that the BRs should set a sunset date (prohibition) for issuance of end-entity certs with SHA1 (like we did for ISN and IP address certs under BR 9.2.1 and for certs with a validity period of more than 39 months under BR 9.4.1) just as a matter of good practice, and recognition that SHA1 will be compromised.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>However, I also think we should put in a legacy exception allowing SHA1 certs after the sunset date (just as we allow 60 month certs under BR 9.4.1 for legacy cases), with a required warning to the customer who insists about the dangers to the customer and the likelihood that the cert won’t work in Microsoft and other browsers. That will force customers to make a case for the SHA1 cert (which the CA must document), and give them fair warning.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Here are the current legacy exceptions allowing 60 month certs under BR 9.4.1. Should we adopt the same or similar exceptions for SHA1 certs after the sunset date?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>Beyond 1 April 2015, CAs MAY continue to issue Subscriber Certificates with a Validity Period greater than 39 months but not greater than 60 months provided that the CA documents that the Certificate is for a system or software that:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>(a) was in use prior to the Effective Date;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>(b) is currently in use by either the Applicant or a substantial number of Relying Parties;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>(c) fails to operate if the Validity Period is shorter than 60 months;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>(d) does not contain known security risks to Relying Parties; and<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>(e) is difficult to patch or replace without substantial economic outlay.<span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><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"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <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>Ben Wilson<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:54 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'Doug Beattie'; 'CABFPub'; 'Ryan Sleevi'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<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'>What about this?<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"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <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>Doug Beattie<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:31 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ben@digicert.com">ben@digicert.com</a>; 'CABFPub'; 'Ryan Sleevi'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<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 Ben,<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'>I’m not sure this entirely captures the requirements for the deprecation of SHA-1. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:<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'>While I agree with the requirement that Root and Subordinate CA Certificates generated after 31 December 2015 should not be SHA-1, I don’t think this accurately defines the 1 January 2017 “event”. While all certs issued after 31 December 2015 should not be SHA-1, it implies that SHA-1 certificates issued before this date will be valid until they expire. Microsoft has stated that on 1 January 2017 if any certificates in the chain up to, but not including, the root (including cross certificates) are SHA-1, the certificate validation will fail. Isn’t this the point we want to make? I’m not sure we need to state in the BR when SHA-1 certificates should no longer be issued, or when they must expire, just when they won’t be validated. If some CAs want to dig a big hole by issuing lots of SHA-1 certificates that expire after 1 January 2017, that is their challenge to resolve.<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'>I attempted to document this in the attached for your consideration. The first page of the attachment summarizes the suggested changes while the next 2 are redlined changes for Appendix A, much like your attachment.<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'>Doug<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 #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> Ben Wilson [<a href="mailto:ben@digicert.com">mailto:ben@digicert.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 09, 2014 3:20 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'CABFPub'; 'Ryan Sleevi'; Doug Beattie<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<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'>All,<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'>Here is a draft of Ballot 118 – SHA1 Sunset. <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'>I’ve proposed language to replace the current footnote concerning SHA1 in Appendix A, feel free to edit:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>* "Effective immediately CAs SHOULD begin migrating away from using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm to sign Subscriber Certificates. CAs SHOULD advise Applicants that Microsoft has indicated that Windows will stop accepting SHA1 certificates on 1 January 2017 or sooner if the algorithm becomes vulnerable to cryptographic attack." Alternatively, it could be re-phrased to say, “CAs may want to advise Applicants that …”, but this draft has “SHOULD”.<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'>Also, if your look at table (1) Root CA Certificates, it still allows legacy SHA1 Roots created before January 1, 2016, to serve as trust anchors. The language is Root Certificates “with a validity period beginning after 31 Dec. 2015”, which means that starting Jan. 1, 2016, CAs shouldn’t be submitting new roots signed using SHA1, but I doubt that few CAs are still submitting SHA1 signed roots, so I don’t think that is an issue that we need to call out specially in the table below. <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'>Ben Wilson of DigiCert made the following motion, and ____ from _______ and _________ from __________ endorsed it: <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'>Motion Begins<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'>In order to bring CA practices in line with SHA1 deprecation plans for the industry, Appendix A of the Baseline Requirements is amended effective immediately as follows:<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'>In each of the three tables in Appendix A, delete the middle column (because it is applicable mostly for certificates valid through 2013, which have expired anyway by now) and insert a new column on the right side of each of the tables with a column heading that reads, <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'>"Validity period beginning after 31 Dec 2015". <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'>Add the following for the first and last column of each row in the following tables:<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'>(1) Root CA Certificates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Digest algorithm - SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Minimum RSA modulus size (bits) - 2048<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>ECC curve - NIST P-256, P-384, or P-521<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Minimum DSA modulus and divisor size (bits) - L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256, L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256 <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'>(2) Subordinate CA Certificates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Digest algorithm - SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Minimum RSA modulus size (bits) - 2048<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>ECC curve - NIST P-256, P-384, or P-521<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Minimum DSA modulus and divisor size (bits) - L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256, L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256 <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'>(3) Subscriber Certificates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Digest algorithm - SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Minimum RSA modulus size (bits) - 2048<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>ECC curve - NIST P-256, P-384, or P-521<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Minimum DSA modulus and divisor size (bits) - L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256, L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256 <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'>Replace the footnote "*" in Appendix A with the following: "Effective immediately CAs SHOULD begin migrating away from using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm to sign Subscriber Certificates. CAs SHOULD advise Applicants that Microsoft has indicated that Windows will stop accepting SHA1 certificates on 1 January 2017 or sooner if the algorithm becomes vulnerable to cryptographic attack."<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'>Motion Ends<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'>The review period for this ballot shall commence at 2200 UTC on Monday, 10 March 2014, and will close at 2200 UTC on Monday, 17 March 2014. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 2200 UTC on Monday, 24 March 2014. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread. <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 vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response. A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted. Voting members are listed here: <a href="https://cabforum.org/members/">https://cabforum.org/members/</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'>In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and greater than 50% of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, at least six members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against, or abstaining<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"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <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>Ben Wilson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 03, 2014 11:05 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Ryan Sleevi'<br><b>Cc:</b> 'CABFPub'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<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'>Ryan,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I agree with your view. I’m just trying to get the “what-ifs” out in the open for discussion. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Several times in the past the Forum has been criticized for not doing enough to consider the whole ecosystem. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I’m just giving everyone heads-up on a potential future issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ben<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><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <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>Ryan Sleevi<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 28, 2014 1:57 PM<br><b>To:</b> Ben Wilson<br><b>Cc:</b> CABFPub<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ben,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Why do you believe that Microsoft's review is the only way to discover "Application X" and its existence? Why wouldn't we, within the CA/B Forum, except either member CAs (or CAs affected by but not members) to mention "Application X" exists?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Likewise, it seems reasonable to presume that "Application X" is not a common scenario to begin with - otherwise, we expect CAs would already be talking about "Application X" and its impact to their issuance practices.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As such, it seems like the scope of "Application X" is going to be so minimal, that it would be entirely reasonable/preferable/better for the Internet to let "We still issue SHA-1 for Application X" to be a qualified finding during an Audit (presuming, of course, that such timelines are incorporated within the audit framework in a timely manner), and then allow Root Programs to make a decision about "Application X"?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I see no reason to hold up the entire progress based on a hypothetical "Application X". And if such a blanket exception to security needs to be carved out, Root Programs are perfectly capable of doing so - as they have already done for other such "Application X" exceptional scenarios (eg: RSA-1024 bit certs for certain applications - such as Symantec's issuance of a <a href="http://pb.com">pb.com</a> certificate that conflicts with the BRs in <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966350">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=966350</a> )<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Ben Wilson <<a href="mailto:ben@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Let’s say we adopt this as a guideline. Then, what if we want to fine-tune it based on Microsoft’s July 2015 review of progress made? How can we amend the guideline and put that amendment in place before January 1, 2016? (Let’s say that based on Microsoft’s review, it appears that Application X and its users need more time. Won’t a CA that is providing SSL services for Application X say that six months is not enough time for the CAB Forum to adopt an exception and for it to change its code and certificate issuance processes to allow an exception for Application X and its users)? In other words, don’t we need feedback from Microsoft prior to July 2015 in order to put an amendment in place? If we adopt this provision, won’t we need to revisit it in about 12 months? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Doug Beattie<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ben@digicert.com" target="_blank">ben@digicert.com</a>; <a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#888888'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ben,</span><span style='color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>While this may be obvious to most of us, we should explicitly state that all CA certificates in the hierarchy up to, but not including the publicly trusted root, must also not be SHA-1.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Doug</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a> [<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ben Wilson<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [cabfpub] SHA1 Deprecation Ballot<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I’m not sure whether I’ve captured it all, but here is a rough draft of a possible ballot for the Baseline Requirements. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Effective immediately CAs SHOULD begin migrating away from using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm to sign SSL/TLS and code signing certificates. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Beginning January 1, 2016, CAs SHALL NOT use the SHA-1 hashing algorithm to sign SSL/TLS or code signing certificates.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Please provide your comments, edits, etc., <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Ben<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>Public mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><br><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td style='background:white;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0><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></table></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>