<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
OK, what's the phase out period, because anything less than 7 years
is going to REQUIRE Microsoft to agree to start back porting
critical fixes to their older operating systems, and since it's been
made abundantly clear on numerous occasions that this Forum has no
power to enforce, or even set, requirements for PKI trust
stores/browser vendors what teeth do we possibly have to make sure
that happens?<br>
-Rich<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/22/2016 4:23 PM, Jeremy Rowley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7a08e554a4f4ddebfd1a80a3091399f@EX2.corp.digicert.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@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;
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;}
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:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">That’s
exactly why we should endorse with a phase out period.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org">mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Rich
Smith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 22, 2016 4:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public@cabforum.org">public@cabforum.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Proposed new ballot on IP
Addresses in SANs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I'd just like
to also point out that given Microsoft's apparent lack of
interest in back porting any of these changes to their PKI
handling to anything older than Windows 10, and based upon
this:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle">http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle</a><br>
Any exception made will be with us until at least January 10,
2023. I don't really see that as something this group should
endorse.<br>
<br>
-Rich<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 4/22/2016 3:44 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:45 PM,
Peter Bowen <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pzb@amzn.com" target="_blank">pzb@amzn.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">So it would seem that this
solution might not be the best option.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Not the best" isn't the goal.
It's "Don't violate RFC5280" that should be the
goal.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Multiple SANs is a complete
red-herring as to the issue. There's no requirement
that such certificates have them.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Common name deprecation is
equally a red-herring. If it offers a viable path
for these clients, without the attendant security
issues and *fundamental violation of RFC5280*, it's
worth exploring.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That there's been no further
explanation other than "Meh" is, unquestionably, not
a position we can endorse, but even moreso, a policy
of "Oh well, we'll violate them anyways" is just
grossly irresponsible.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">The best solution would be for
clients to be updated to follow RFC 2818 and check
iPAddress entries in the SAN.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, and Microsoft can solve
this very easily, without the same risks and
compatibility issues of nameConstraints.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We considered the RFC5280
non-criticality of nameConstraints because it
offered significant positive security value for a
majority of clients, without compatibility risks.
The iPAddresses provide no positive security value -
other than allowing CAs to sell to users with buggy
software that their vendor doesn't want to fix - and
come with significant compatibility and security
risks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
To me, it seems that allowing string-ified IP
address in dNSName entries in the SAN when the same
IP address is included as an iPAddress entry in the
SAN is a reasonable tradeoff. It is no worse than
including the same in the common name. As you have
pointed out, a string-ified IP address can never
match a hostname, so there is no chance of
confusion <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I've already explained to you why
this is incorrect. It's unfortunate that you
continue to suggest this line of thinking. A
string-ified IP address is not a valid hostname.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">If you have a client that
properly conforms to RFC 2818, then this is a no-op
for you — you will look at the IPaddress entry and
never try to match on DNSname. You had expressed
concern that Mozilla would need to update its code,
but Gerv had indicated back in August that this was
not necessary (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-August/005850.html"
target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-August/005850.html</a>).<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That's not what is in the ballot.
What is in the ballot can and will cause
compatibility issues. It also suggests that Chrome
would need to adopt Firefox's peculiar behaviour
(only validating presented identifiers as they're
encountered, rather than at parse time). That's not
something we are comfortable with implementing, and
especially not foisting upon the ecosystem to know
about the "special" rules the CA/B Forum embraces.
There's already enough magic in the WebPKI - we
shouldn't knowingly introduce more.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">I appreciate that conformance is
a great goal, but not causing customer pain is also
a laudable goal. In this case it seems the risk is
low and the customer value is high.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There has yet to be a
demonstration of the customer value compared to the
solution posed 8 months ago. There's clearly a
demonstration of CA value - they do less work - and
of browser value - Microsoft does less work - but
there has yet to be an articulation of why the
solution is non-viable. The closest comment is
Jeremy saying they've investigated, it's not
practical - but provided zero evidence or technical
detail that would allow a reasoned weighing of the
risk versus reward. Instead, we see CAs eager to
violate RFC5280, easy to cause compatibility issues
with clients, and w/o apparent care for the
long-term damage to the ecosystem they would be
doing.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Public mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org">Public@cabforum.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>