<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
> 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.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
Perhaps this current ballot could add language that requires CAs to document in their CP and/or CPS (1) which linter(s) are used and (2) the CA's strategy for updating linters. Would that be useful?</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>From:</b> Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org> on behalf of Ryan Dickson via Servercert-wg <servercert-wg@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 29 May 2024 08:31<br>
<b>To:</b> Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo@harica.gr><br>
<b>Cc:</b> CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <servercert-wg@cabforum.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-75 - Pre-sign linting</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left; line-height: 12pt; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 3); padding: 2pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 10pt;">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">CAUTION:</span><span style="color: black;"> 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></div>
<br>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thanks for the update, Dimitris - and to the ballot endorsers for their consideration of the points made in my message.</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In general, I have no objections to the recently described adoption approach or timeline. </span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">> 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></p>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 10pt; margin-right: 30pt; margin-bottom: 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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. </span></p>
<p class="elementToProof" style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">> 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.</span></p>
<div class="elementToProof" style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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. </span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p class="elementToProof" style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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. </span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">For example, something like: </span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<ul style="direction: ltr; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
<li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); direction: ltr; list-style-type: disc;">
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“<i>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.”</i></span></p>
</li></ul>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">OR</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<ul style="direction: ltr; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
<li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); direction: ltr; list-style-type: disc;">
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“<i>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.</i>”</span></p>
</li></ul>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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. </span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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/" id="OWAe19eb2da-a1bf-2733-1bdb-c4aa48e22152" class="OWAAutoLink" shash="wZnWbkWlexB/tdFPrMz1MoPSKAyJ5+TF+MhoEy+ijMpdI6JPFdGFDy9TzkjrgIhEOH0QZi6xoYKMAbA7YWFJ00F5lSsXAOKBtDGVcGhEmuptYXJk9DSFYxuC3sK9p6cYhkrv7p69B/iob+W4Qg4ToOYJAi7s05wQAOhyoUPtsMI=" originalsrc="https://cabforum.org/resources/tools/" data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
https://cabforum.org/resources/tools/</a>). For example, pkilint (</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://github.com/digicert/pkilint/releases/tag/v0.9.0" id="OWAee80ac0a-df5d-f573-58e2-59fd7997f7eb" class="OWAAutoLink" shash="GcYrRJx2Bh9VD2WK7CwVoBqq5OH0+R08nNClo51+McAjRu5qJyxcHx9ggVGLKEagbEo1WdB7YaZaLbxiaFp8ZQEZCO7hB7C0IiwVFEqyhUjv4FrH898MYEmMRgM+S6lYOjHbwWsS6egIDqJlGhZ/iZDzMIeUWShmlO3Yeq71dcM=" originalsrc="https://github.com/digicert/pkilint/releases/tag/v0.9.0" data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">Version
0.9.0</a></span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">) was released about 3-weeks prior to the effective date described in
</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://cabforum.org/2023/03/17/ballot-sc62v2-certificate-profiles-update/" id="OWA7a50cf28-0df7-c9a4-1b1b-d39dd2084a84" class="OWAAutoLink" shash="nbTQYbLqO7g3i0RrBjTM3m/RVTp0dR0XkdapX1EtFIKP/gciR0kVLwPwWtzHgspGsqJmPkSg+ctQX1kFiqUULsZ4K2AgospsCQgxonpV320PxvvDoG+VLHN009TpN8bljMawefPG66vv9n46ZCuDJGDsN4Ij9Lj9BdZ2da+NOqA=" originalsrc="https://cabforum.org/2023/03/17/ballot-sc62v2-certificate-profiles-update/" data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">SC-62</a></span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.
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></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thanks again!</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">- Ryan</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div style="direction: ltr;">On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 3:41 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <<a href="mailto:dzacharo@harica.gr" id="OWA4ab1025c-22ca-11d4-ec32-4830d2915604" class="OWAAutoLink" data-loopstyle="linkonly">dzacharo@harica.gr</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">
<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>
<div>On 20/5/2024 10:35 μ.μ., Ryan Dickson wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hi Dimitris, Corey, and Ben,</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thank you for bringing this ballot forward for the group’s consideration.</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A few questions:</span></p>
<ul style="direction: ltr;">
<li style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); direction: ltr;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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 style="direction: ltr;">
<li style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); direction: ltr;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span></li><li style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); direction: ltr;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span></li></ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
I see two issues here:<br>
<ol start="1" data-listchain="__List_Chain_67">
<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>
<ul style="direction: ltr;">
<li style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); direction: ltr;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Is it worth more clearly establishing expectations for the evaluation and, when applicable, deployment of updates 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).<br>
</span></li></ul>
</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>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thanks for your consideration.</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<p style="direction: ltr; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">- Ryan</span></p>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div style="direction: ltr;">On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 2:04 PM Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org" id="OWAe0c80f68-1c34-6f18-dfac-df04624ec03f" class="OWAAutoLink" data-loopstyle="linkonly">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">
<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Hi Dimitris,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I don´t know if the “(help to improve)” is adding any additional hidden requirement. IMO, I´d remove that.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Regards</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p>
<div style="padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm; border-top: 1pt solid rgb(225, 225, 225);">
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><b>De:</b> Servercert-wg <<a href="mailto:servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org" id="OWA5aeec710-388d-039b-7951-34aeb31fd931" class="OWAAutoLink" data-loopstyle="linkonly" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">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" id="OWAfa2a1aed-a386-767e-518b-0d1e040c8c0a" class="OWAAutoLink" data-loopstyle="linkonly" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Asunto:</b> [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-75 - Pre-sign linting</span></p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div style="padding: 2pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid; border-color: black;">
<p style="line-height: 12pt; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 3);"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; 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> </p>
<h1>SC-75 Pre-sign linting</h1>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p>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>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>You can view the GitHub pull request representing this ballot <a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/518" id="OWAfc338340-f898-2845-d8aa-4b895a6f0584" class="OWAAutoLink" shash="GJMUg7jhTw07vLfmoONWPOPF4uQQlLcZIeeNT81WH96Y8PFbLgjAiPoE5QvtE+KZLQz2CvtDnKpggY6XxGZpOXJ4RSW2m70POkxaiCM3deg5ZE6fW+nJS2bE/oUZ1XDoPDY8439w0KvHJ3N20kCmGWsGbgRw0lNBo+AA/GGSsDQ=" originalsrc="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/518" data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">
here</a>. </p>
<h2>Motion Begins</h2>
<p>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>
<li><a href="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5" id="OWA29786c13-81c9-da1a-a39a-d1c7ba7fee78" class="OWAAutoLink" shash="rLxD32s1zvrvGP3yYcE8KEtY+KDSiRoqU5ASRIuR/c0lAgygGAU6jTgK0IMSkHGUgoCJ1a/8Db+RP3akTo79bHuJsCfzRi1tgk6H0Zygfhsd0oqDJKIOZCLxUIsGflhtBIU+0GjP5MLAPxfPnQ57F0Szyk/e8eHmpoLSo42hgxU=" originalsrc="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5" data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly">https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5</a> </li></ul>
<h2>Motion Ends</h2>
<p>This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:</p>
<h4>Discussion (at least 7 days)</h4>
<ul>
<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>Vote for approval (7 days)</h4>
<ul>
<li>Start time: TBD</li><li>End time: TBD</li></ul>
<p> </p>
_______________________________________________<br>
Servercert-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org" id="OWAc6ec1cf4-efce-be4c-85d7-da5fe9020468" class="OWAAutoLink" data-loopstyle="linkonly">Servercert-wg@cabforum.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg" id="OWA4cd2d743-ac70-cd79-ec29-edc51c81c3f8" class="OWAAutoLink" shash="rCD+bjwAU3xO03KjZJwYopV2eKJvfnMV4K89jXvn9yBNGCJH9TtrEYTcmyvlYz/CgufxdpeyR2+ztLfFRCNHP9B1JazkzWpD98WfMcrrkLCxgfWhoNvzpiSGs3zpfbFOze+CkATjzhe+FkOmb37nNtSu2LL1dvszpi6EiU1gVKE=" originalsrc="https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg" data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly">https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>