<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/4/2017 8:42 πμ, Peter Bowen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2A526E69-12F7-4710-8051-6CFF6390806D@amzn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Apr 2, 2017, at 11:30 PM, Dimitris
Zacharopoulos via Public <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/4/2017 3:39 πμ, Peter
Bowen via Public wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:632639CD-952E-4C41-B835-1468EA70DC74@amzn.com"
type="cite" class="">
<pre class="" wrap="">I’m trying to draft a proposed revision to the BRs and ran into a terminology/style question.
Given:
Key Pair: a set of cryptographic keys, usable with an asymmetric key cryptographic algorithm, consisting of a Private Key, a Public Key, and associated parameters. For any given Private Key and parameter set, there exists exactly one associated Public Key.
A Certification Authority (CA) has a single Distinguished Name (DN)[1] and one or more Key Pairs[2]. Therefore a CA has at least one Private Key and at least one Public Key and may have multiple Private Keys and Public Keys.
Which of the following is preferred:
A Signature is created using a Private Key. (It is not created _by_ a Private Key.)
1A) A Certificate is issued by a CA when a Signature is created over a TBSCertificate with the Distinguished Name of a CA in the Issuer component using a Private Key of the CA.
1B) A Certificate is issued by a CA when a Signature is created over a TBSCertificate with the CA’s Distinguished Name in the Issuer component using the CA’s Private Key.
A Signature is the result of signing data using a Private Key. (It is not signed _by_ a Private Key.)
2A) A Certificate is issued by a CA when a TBSCertificate with the Distinguished Name of a CA in the Issuer component is signed using a Private Key of the CA.
2B) A Certificate is issued by a CA when a TBSCertificate with the CA’s Distinguished Name in the Issuer component is signed using the CA’s Private Key.
The difference been the A and B versions with whether or not to use a possessive noun with an inanimate object (the CA).
I would like to use one of these consistently and follow the style for other cases. Any one care to suggest which should be used?
Thanks,
Peter</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
In these examples (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B), as I read it, "issued
by a CA" refers to the "Issuing CA" (materialized in a CA
Certificate with a specific subject DN which is then used
in the "Issuer" field of issued Certificates) and not the
"CA" as an organization. This actually reflects the
language of X.509 and RFC5280 which basically describe CAs
as "Issuing CAs" rather than organizations in control of
one or more Issuing CAs, as the BRs often suggest. <br
class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
I was rather trying to avoid the CA-as-issuer vs
CA-as-organization distinction in these examples. The primary
reason I raised the 1:1 mapping (or lack thereof) is to explain
why it is _the_ Distinguished Name vs _a_ Distinguished Name.</div>
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> Perhaps
before answering your questions, we should probably agree
on this: If we have <br class="">
<ul class="">
<li class="">a CA Certificate with subject DN "C=XX,
O=Example Org, CN=Issuing CA", Certificate Serial
Number A and keypair A</li>
<li class="">a CA Certificate with subject DN "C=XX,
O=Example Org, CN=Issuing CA", Certificate Serial
Number B and and keypair B</li>
</ul>
<p class="">are we talking about the same "Issuing CA"?<br
class="">
</p>
<p class="">Note1: You will notice that the "Certificate
Serial Number" <u class="">is not</u> the serialNumber
field in the subject DN.</p>
<p class="">Note2: In order to achieve having exactly the
same DN in CA Certificates and different keys, you
probably need to use different Root hierarchies
otherwise you would probably violate section 4.1.2.6 of
RFC5280 that require unique DN under one Issuing CA. It
the Issuing CA is a Root CA, then the issued CA
Certificates under this Root should have unique DNs.
Does this make sense</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>A single issuing CA can have multiple keys if it rotates
keys. There is at least one public CA that has done this.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
By keeping exactly the same DN? Does this align with 4.1.2.6 of RFC
5280 that require unique DNs under one Issuing CA (probably a Root
CA in this case)?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2A526E69-12F7-4710-8051-6CFF6390806D@amzn.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>While not mentioned, two different Issuing CAs can have the
same key pair. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't remember reading any requirement that prevents this.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2A526E69-12F7-4710-8051-6CFF6390806D@amzn.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>So, to answer your question: I would say those are both the
same “Issuing CA”. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If two CA Certificates have exactly the same DN as in the example
above, we agree that we are talking about the same "Issuing CA".
However, we need to understand if the re-key process of an Issuing
CA is in accordance with RFC 5280 since this is not a "self-issued
certificate" that 5280 explicitly allows for keeping the same DN.<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>