<div dir="ltr"><span id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-6a7ce25e-7fff-7bef-1e93-350d41233f4a"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif" style="">Thanks for the update, Dimitris - and to the ballot endorsers for their consideration of the points made in my message.</font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">In general, I have no objections to the recently described adoption approach or timeline. </font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">I'm fine with the stated preference for pre-signing over post-signing linting but the post-signing linting should not be "NOT RECOMMENDED" because it doesn't do any harm on its own. The fact is that we must clearly state that the pre-sign linting is mandatory and the post-sign linting is optional.</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-right:30pt;margin-top:10pt;margin-bottom:10pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">The point I was hoping to make was that the practice of final certificate linting, if performed exclusively, should be considered NOT RECOMMENDED. Sorry for not being more clear. </font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">> It is also challenging to define what an "update" is, at which level (major, minor version), etc. I would prefer leaving that out of this particular ballot and let someone else address it in a separate ballot without risking the speed and success of the linting ballot. I hope this makes sense.</font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">It’s not clear to me there’s urgency behind this ballot, or why we should consider the speed of requirements drafting meaningful in this specific case. I believe the need to adopt linting, and the value the practice plays when considering preventing mis-issuance, is clear to community members. </font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">In any event, I can appreciate the perspective of wanting to take a consistent and holistic approach re: timelines within the BRs. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for near-term compromise that recommends use of updated software versions as described in my message (and below), while also recognizing future action is needed to more completely address your concern moving forward. </font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">For example, something like: </font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><ul style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">“</span><span style="background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">CAs SHOULD evaluate and adopt relevant updates made available for applicable linting packages in the context of their certificate issuance practices within 30 days of their release.”</span></font></p></li></ul><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">OR</font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><ul style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">“</span><span style="background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">CAs MUST describe how they evaluate and adopt relevant updates made available for applicable linting packages in the context of their certificate issuance practices within their CPS.</span><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">”</span></font></p></li></ul><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">I think offering commentary on linting package update cadence is useful because in the case of several recent incident reports disclosed to Bugzilla, we see CA owners committing to updating to the latest version of a tool because it’s become clear through the mis-issuance incident report(s) they were not running the latest version. From this perspective, establishing good practice in the BRs to offer better alignment with the ballot’s problem statement is considered favorable. </font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">One other consideration that might be worth thinking about is how to promote a recommendation that CAs evaluate new linting tools as they become available and known to Forum members (e.g., added to <a href="https://cabforum.org/resources/tools/">https://cabforum.org/resources/tools/</a>). For example, pkilint (</span><a href="https://github.com/digicert/pkilint/releases/tag/v0.9.0" style="text-decoration-line:none"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline">Version 0.9.0</span></a><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">) was released about 3-weeks prior to the effective date described in </span><a href="https://cabforum.org/2023/03/17/ballot-sc62v2-certificate-profiles-update/" style="text-decoration-line:none"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline">SC-62</span></a><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">. It is my understanding that the use of pkilint prior to SC-62’s effective date would have identified and possibly prevented nearly all of the mis-issuance incident reports disclosed over the past few months. There are a few edges here that need to be considered, but I think the topic is worth further discussion. </span></font></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif">Thanks again!</font></span></p><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline"><font face="arial, sans-serif" style="">- Ryan</font></span></p></span><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 3:41 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr">dzacharo@harica.gr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
Hi Ryan,<br>
<br>
Thank you for the feedback. After some internal discussions with
Corey and Ben, please see comments inline.<br>
<br>
<div>On 20/5/2024 10:35 μ.μ., Ryan Dickson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658gmail-docs-internal-guid-a959ac7f-7fff-df49-cc47-fb40c32b2442"><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Hi
Dimitris, Corey, and Ben,</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Thank
you for bringing this ballot forward for the group’s
consideration.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline">A
few questions:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color:transparent">Given the
perceived value of linting, should we consider a
stronger position on its adoption (i.e., MUST versus
SHOULD)? While I recognize that the Baseline
Requirements represent minimum expectations,
consistent and reliable adoption of linting seems to
provide the ecosystem with the best chance of
addressing the problem statement described in the
ballot summary.</span></li>
<ul>
<li>To accomplish this goal, the ballot could be
modified to require use of linting (either tbs
certificate linting, pre-certificate linting, or final
certificate linting), with tbs certificate linting
being considered RECOMMENDED and final certificate
linting as being considered NOT RECOMMENDED.</li>
<li>This goal could be further realized by either a (1)
phased-implementation (i.e., SHOULD now, MUST later) -
or (2) a forward-looking effective date that considers
a reasonable timeline for adoption for those CA Owners
looking to adhere to the BRs that do not perform
linting today.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I see two issues here:<br>
<ol>
<li>Require linting with either a phased-approach or directly with
a single effective date: I'm fine with either approach with a
slight preference to the phased-in. CAs should have been
following public incidents and m.d.s.p. discussions for years,
so existing CAs should already be doing pre-sign linting. OTOH
new CAs need the additional guidance. A CA will either have to
create its own technical tools to check their profiles accuracy
or use the recommended open-source tools we reference.<br>
</li>
<li>I'm fine with the stated preference for pre-signing over
post-signing linting but the post-signing linting should not be
"NOT RECOMMENDED" because it doesn't do any harm on its own. The
fact is that we must clearly state that the pre-sign linting is
mandatory and the post-sign linting is optional.</li>
</ol>
With that said, Ben and Corey have agreed with a SHOULD effective
date of 15 September, 2024 and a SHALL effective date of 15 March,
2025. If people have objections to setting these effective dates,
please let me know.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658gmail-docs-internal-guid-a959ac7f-7fff-df49-cc47-fb40c32b2442"><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">
<ul>
<li>Is it worth more clearly establishing expectations for
the evaluation and, when applicable, deployment of <span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline">updates</span><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">
made by or to linting tools. For example, can we
establish a reasonable expectation that within 30(?)
days after an update has been made to a linting tool
relied upon by a CA, it has either (1) been adopted in
the production issuance environment - or (2)
considered not applicable given the scope of recent
updates (for example, if a CA only issues DV
certificates, and the most recent update only pertains
to EV certificates, there is no expectation that the
updated version is deployed). </span><br>
</li>
</ul>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This may open a series of questions around updates in other, more
security-critical components of the CA pipeline. I think we should
address this issue more holistically as it affects updates to
hardware firmware, OS patches, CA vendor software updates,
third-party software dependencies, switches/router firmware, and
other dependencies in Certificate Management Systems.<br>
<br>
It is also challenging to define what an "update" is, at which level
(major, minor version), etc. I would prefer leaving that out of this
particular ballot and let someone else address it in a separate
ballot without risking the speed and success of the linting ballot.
I hope this makes sense.<br>
<br>
More feedback is welcome before proceeding with the changes.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658gmail-docs-internal-guid-a959ac7f-7fff-df49-cc47-fb40c32b2442"><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><br>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Thanks
for your consideration.</span></p>
<br>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">-
Ryan</span></p>
</font></span><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 20, 2024 at
2:04 PM Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div lang="ES">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Hi
Dimitris,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US">I don´t know if the “(help to improve)”
is adding any additional hidden requirement. IMO,
I´d remove that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US">Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">De:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> Servercert-wg
<<a href="mailto:servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org</a>>
<b>En nombre de </b>Dimitris Zacharopoulos
(HARICA) via Servercert-wg<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> lunes, 20 de mayo de 2024
19:57<br>
<b>Para:</b> CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG
Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Asunto:</b> [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-75 -
Pre-sign linting</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div style="border:1pt solid black;padding:2pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:12pt;background:rgb(250,250,3)"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of the
organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<h1>SC-75 Pre-sign linting</h1>
<h2 id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-summary">Summary</h2>
<p id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-this-pull-request-pr">There
have been numerous compliance incidents publicly
disclosed by CAs in which they failed to comply with
the technical requirements described in standards
associated with the issuance and management of
publicly-trusted TLS Certificates. However, the
industry has developed open-source tools, linters,
that are free to use and can help CAs avoid
certificate misissuance. Using such linters before
issuing a precertificate from a Publicly-Trusted CA
(pre-issuance linting) can prevent the mis-issuance
in a wide variety of cases.</p>
<p id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-the-following-motion">The
following motion has been proposed by Dimitris
Zacharopoulos of HARICA and endorsed by Corey
Bonnell of Digicert and Ben Wilson of Mozilla.</p>
<p id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-you-can-view-and-com">You
can view the GitHub pull request representing this
ballot <a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fservercert%2Fpull%2F518&data=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7Cba7a2f0fe37e4bb49d7a08dc78f6397c%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638518246126378220%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZzEsOoXvcYi%2F%2BO8TpaYY%2FIP7FV9sVmgn2sXa4fhHMTo%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">here</a>. </p>
<h2 id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-motion-begins">Motion
Begins</h2>
<p id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-modify-the-%22baseline">MODIFY
the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server
Certificates" based on Version 2.0.4 as specified in
the following redline:</p>
<ul id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fc" type="disc">
<li><a href="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fservercert%2Fcompare%2F049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5&data=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7Cba7a2f0fe37e4bb49d7a08dc78f6397c%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638518246126388782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0Yf5qjQ41hV93d91TsZ2PpvnRaK4zysf1UKIW%2Btuqwg%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5</a> </li>
</ul>
<h2 id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-motion-ends">Motion
Ends</h2>
<p id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-this-ballot-proposes">This
ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The
procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:</p>
<h4 id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-discussion-%2811%2B-days">Discussion
(at least 7 days)</h4>
<ul id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-start-time%3A-2024-01-" type="disc">
<li>Start time: 2024-05-20 18:00:00 UTC</li>
<li>End time: on or after 2024-05-27 18:00:00 UTC</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-vote-for-approval-%287">Vote
for approval (7 days)</h4>
<ul id="m_1600128793445267323m_2832419603062105658m_-7238962214217580443bkmrk-start-time%3A-tbd-end-" type="disc">
<li>Start time: TBD</li>
<li>End time: TBD</li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Servercert-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org" target="_blank">Servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>