<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 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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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.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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:m_-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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:885142923;
mso-list-template-ids:-912075486;}
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>This characterization of CAs in general is simply not true and I wish you would stop making it. It’s a bunch of overly broad statements and mischaracterizations.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There are some bad actors out there, and some bad practices out there that need to be eliminated, but using that to tar the entire industry with a broad brush is misleading in the extreme.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Tim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Public [mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ryan Sleevi via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 3, 2018 10:03 PM<br><b>To:</b> Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton@entrustdatacard.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Verification of Domain Contact and Domain Authorization Document<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Given that CAs have competing interests - namely, to sell certificates first and foremost, while at the same time not doing anything too egregious to get noticed and thus distrusted - I don't think it's reasonable, particularly given the economic incentives and industrial behaviour, to suggest that CAs would find this as something to reject.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Most CAs, at the end of the day, mint certs for money. CAs particularly concerned about appearances such as market share are further incentivized to make minting certs easier. It is thus unsurprising that this sort of incentive structure results in what we might term 'exploitative' (in a security mindset), while the CA might call it 'innovative' or 'customer friendly'.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Bruce Morton via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</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'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>The requirement may mean a LOT of things, but it is also qualified by language such as “This method may only be used if: 1. The CA authenticates the Applicant's identity under BR Section 3.2.2.1 and the authority of the Applicant Representative under BR Section 3.2.5.”</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'>I assume it will be stated that the language in 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.5 also mean a LOT of things, but this is the job of the CA to create a policy which is effective. Per BR 5, the CA should also do risk assessments and security plans. Using this methodology will help the CA close the loopholes in its processes. Of course, if the CA still finds the risk too high, then they can stop using the method.</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'>Bruce.</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> Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy Rowley via Public<br><b>Sent:</b> January 3, 2018 5:25 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:geoffk@apple.com" target="_blank">geoffk@apple.com</a><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Verification of Domain Contact and Domain Authorization Document<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'>The ambiguity is exactly why we need to remove method 1. I’ve seen all of the following:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'>1)<span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span>Approval based on a name match<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'>2)<span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span>Approval based on an email match (same email as requester or the email is a corporate email) – note that this is a Domain Contact match<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'>3)<span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span>Approval based on address and name match<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'>4)<span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span>Approval based on a letter from the registrar<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'>5)<span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span>Approval based on a call to the registrar<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'>6)<span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'> </span>Approval based on a validation email to the registrar<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'>All of these are equally permitted by the language, IMO, because “by validating the Applicant has the same name as the Domain Contact directly with the Domain Name Registrar” can mean a LOT of things.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a name="m_-1878068654978953830__MailEndCompose"> </a><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:geoffk@apple.com" target="_blank">geoffk@apple.com</a> [<a href="mailto:geoffk@apple.com" target="_blank">mailto:geoffk@apple.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 3, 2018 2:54 PM<br><b>To:</b> Jeremy Rowley <<a href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>>; Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>; Adriano Santoni <<a href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it" target="_blank">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabfpub] Verification of Domain Contact and Domain Authorization Document<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><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>It looks like we’re going to be removing 3.2.2.4.1, so this will be moot, but just to explain the interpretation, 3.2.2.4.1 says that what you are doing (this sentence is the entire description of the method, the rest of the section just limits its application) is "Confirming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by validating the Applicant is the Domain Contact directly with the Domain Name Registrar.”<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>This is not a name match. If the BRs wanted to say “by validating the Applicant has the same name as the Domain Contact”, they would say so. This is a one-and-the-same match, it uses the word “is”. In the example below, the CA must ensure that “Google Inc., the Utah corporation” is the same one as shown in the WHOIS information, and all the WHOIS information is relevant in confirming this.<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></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Another important clarification is that if you use 3.2.2.1, it doesn’t just verify “the name of the applicant”; it says that "the CA SHALL verify the identity and address of the organization”, not just the name. (Um… actually, if you read it closely, you might not verify the name at all, if you identify the organization in another way, maybe with some kind of ID number. That’s probably a bug.)<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></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On 2 Jan 2018, at 8:47 pm, Jeremy Rowley <<a href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I disagree. The requirements do not specify that. All that is required is the name of the applicant was verified under 3.2.2.1 and that the register specify the domain contact is the applicant. If Google, Inc. is specified as the domain contact, no address matching is required.<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></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b><span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:geoffk@apple.com" target="_blank">geoffk@apple.com</a> [<a href="mailto:geoffk@apple.com" target="_blank">mailto:geoffk@apple.com</a>]<span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span><br><b>Sent:</b><span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span>Tuesday, January 2, 2018 4:34 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span>Jeremy Rowley <<a href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b><span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span>Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>; Adriano Santoni <<a href="mailto:adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it" target="_blank">adriano.santoni@staff.aruba.it</a>><br><b>Subject:</b><span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span>Re: [cabfpub] Verification of Domain Contact and Domain Authorization Document<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <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></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Dec 22, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Jeremy Rowley via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>public@cabforum.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The attack vector is easier than that.<span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>I use very stringent processes to verify that Google, Inc. is a legit company in Utah.<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>I verify that Jeremy did indeed incorporate Google, Inc.<span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>I call Jeremy at the phone listed for Google, Inc., the Utah corporation<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>The domain information shows Google, Inc. as owning<span class=m-1878068654978953830apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://google.com/" target="_blank"><span style='color:purple'>google.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Certificate issues.<o:p></o:p></li></ol><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Obviously this would be caught in every CA’s high risk checks, but the point remains valid. Regardless of the expertise and thoroughness of the org check, the specs lack any time between the verified org and the actual domain because orgs are not unique on a global basis.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>For item 4, you have to verify that “the Applicant is the Domain Contact”. Obviously it’s insufficient to just compare names—you must verify every element of the WHOIS contact matches the Applicant, that’s typically name, postal address, phone number, and e-mail.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <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></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>