<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=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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
p.paragraph, li.paragraph, div.paragraph
{mso-style-name:paragraph;
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.normaltextrun
{mso-style-name:normaltextrun;}
span.eop
{mso-style-name:eop;}
span.scxw53035567
{mso-style-name:scxw53035567;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
@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]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun>Purpose of Ballot SC-059 V3</span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun>Several events within the community have led to concerns that the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates (BRs) lacked a specificity required to properly guide CAs on matters dealing with the identification and processing of digital certificates based on private keys considered weak, or easy to ascertain. In the hopes that elaboration and clarity on the subject would be beneficial to the community, we are presenting updates to §4.9.1.1(“Reasons for Revoking a Subscriber Certificate) and §6.1.1.3 (Subscriber Key Pair Generation) of the BRs.</span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun>The first update is to §4.9.1.1 and is made to expand the scope of easily computable Private Keys from “Debian weak keys” to “those listed in section 6.1.1.3(5)”. While the initial language in the BRs did not exclude other concerns, the use of a single example could be interpreted to mean that other easily computable Private Keys are few and far between. The next update was to §6.1.1.3(5), wherein we added specific actions to be taken for ROCA vulnerability, Debian weak keys - both RSA and ECDSA – and Close Primes vulnerability. We also added a link to suggested tools to be used for checking weak keys. Finally, an implementation date of December 1, 2023 was added to allow CAs time to update processes to meet the requirements. </span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun><span style='color:black'>The following motion has been proposed by Thomas Zermeno of SSL.com and endorsed by Ben Wilson of Mozilla and Martijn Katerbarg of Sectigo.</span></span><span class=eop><span style='color:black'> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun>--Motion Begins—</span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>This ballot is intended to clarify CA responsibilities regarding weak key vulnerabilities, including specific guidance for Debian weak key, ROCA and Close Primes attack vulnerabilities, and modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” as follows, based on Version 2.0.0. </span></span><span class=scxw53035567><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'> </span></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><br><span class=scxw53035567> </span><br><span class=normaltextrun>Notes: Upon beginning discussion for SC-59, the then-current version of the BRs was 1.8.4; since that time several ballots have been approved, leading to the increment of the version to 1.8.7 and eventually 2.0.0, which is the latest approved version of the BRs. The changes introduced in SC-59 do not conflict with any of the recent ballots. As observed with other ballots in the past, minor administrative updates must be made to the proposed ballot text before publication such that the appropriate Version # and Change History are accurately represented (e.g., to indicate these changes will be represented in Version 2.0.1).</span><span class=eop> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun> </span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun><span style='color:black'>MODIFY the Baseline Requirements as specified in the following Redline: </span></span><a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3...SSLcom:servercert:3b0c6de32595d02fbd96762cda98cdc88addef00" target="_blank"><span class=normaltextrun><span style='color:black'>https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/a0360b61e73476959220dc328e3b68d0224fa0b3...SSLcom:servercert:3b0c6de32595d02fbd96762cda98cdc88addef00</span></span></a><span class=eop><span style='color:black'> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun> </span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun>--Motion Ends—</span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun>This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:</span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=paragraph style='vertical-align:baseline'><span class=normaltextrun>Discussion (11+ days) • Start time: 2023-05-25 19:00:00 UTC • End time: 2023-06-08 18:59:00 UTC</span><span class=scxw53035567> </span><br><span class=normaltextrun>Vote for approval (7 days) • Start time: TBD • End time: TBD</span><span class=eop> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>