<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/5/2024 5:58 μ.μ., Aaron Gable
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEmnEreCaxhcDv0u_LJsY+rZYrL=jHBhgfi0_OO3XyFeXRuVfA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 14, 2024, 02:33
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg <<a
href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Is it ok for such an Issuing CA to create a
single-purpose client authentication TLS Certificate,
one that is structured according to RFC 5280 (thus can
be successfully parsed by Relying Party RFC
5280-conformant software), contains an extKeyUsage
extension which contains the <i>id-kp-clientAuth</i>
and DOES NOT include the <i>id-kp-serverAuth</i>
KeyPurposeId?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Speaking in a personal capacity, it is my
opinion that no, such issuance is not acceptable.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I agree that the resulting end-entity
client-auth-only certificate is out of scope of the BRs, and
is not in and of itself misissued. However, the issuing
intermediate itself is still in scope of the BRs, and its
behavior can be contained by them. By virtue of issuing the
clientAuth cert, the issuing intermediate has violated the BRs
requirement that "all certificates that it issues MUST comply
with one of the following certificate profiles".</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">One could even argue that, having issued a
certificate which does not comply with a BR profile, the
issuing intermediate must be revoked within 7 days, per BRs
Section 4.9.1.2 (5): "The Issuing CA SHALL revoke a
Subordinate CA Certificate [if...] the Issuing CA is made
aware that the... Subordinate CA has not complied with this
document".</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Aaron</div>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Aaron, I tried to first establish the <i>intent</i> of the
group before digging in the actual BRs. If we agree that the intent
was to place rules only for Server TLS leaf Certificates but not for
Client TLS Certificates, then we need to acknowledge that, and work
within the document to fix any conflicts.<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>