<!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 3/6/2024 12:48 μ.μ., Rob Stradling
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MW4PR17MB4729DCD774BF9D2FC24148BAAAFF2@MW4PR17MB4729.namprd17.prod.outlook.com">
<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>
<div class="elementToProof"
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
> the CA SHOULD implement a Linting process to test the
technical conformity of the Certificate to be issued with these
Requirements.</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>
<div class="elementToProof"
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
If a CA runs one or more linters during preissuance but chooses
to always completely ignore those linters' findings, can that CA
claim to be compliant with this (currently draft) ballot
language?</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>
<div class="elementToProof"
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
If so, should this ballot be more prescriptive regarding how CAs
are expected to handle linter findings?</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>
<div class="elementToProof"
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
(For example, perhaps we could write something along the lines
of "The CA MUST block issuance if the linter(s) return one or
more 'fatal', 'error', or 'bug' findings, and SHOULD block
issuance if the linter(s) return one or more 'warning'
findings").</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I didn't want to go too much into the specifics of a "Linter"
because this was supposed to be a technical/policy requirement and
not a software engineering requirement. Some in-house linters may
not even follow the logic of returning specific exit codes.<br>
<br>
I think the requirement makes it clear that it is in the best
interest of the CA to run effective Linting software to prevent
mis-issuances and future security incidents. If a CA wants to run a
linter which provides an output signalling that "something's wrong
here", and the CA decides to ignore that warning, so be it.<br>
<br>
With that said, I'd be happy to see if we can come up with
technology-neutral language that can address Rob's concern. I
couldn't come up with anything.<br>
<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MW4PR17MB4729DCD774BF9D2FC24148BAAAFF2@MW4PR17MB4729.namprd17.prod.outlook.com">
<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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org"><servercert-wg-bounces@cabforum.org></a> on behalf of
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"><servercert-wg@cabforum.org></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 20 May 2024 18:56<br>
<b>To:</b> CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion
List <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:servercert-wg@cabforum.org"><servercert-wg@cabforum.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [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>
<h1>SC-75 Pre-sign linting</h1>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<p style="direction: ltr;">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 style="direction: ltr;">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="OWAf2ef93fe-9087-fb39-d743-8d10a0805a1f"
class="OWAAutoLink"
shash="Li7nL0TNcpycrqc/4HFQfRNzigYd0IDCbqp+1FFACu2oEthpn7g35YWuG1/ohzN84JsTsc5GtBDuHDSW6pAxxKxfc/eJrqfCtO1SK7Uom5iFAl/aH+CCf+WwRkA/7cpF0buTe1LmjFDOY73ksauo357XZujP72Dl+YUJ1IrxyQs="
originalsrc="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/518"
data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly"
style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"
moz-do-not-send="true">
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="OWAb0920ff4-55c1-90f3-2376-bc83229befd1"
class="x_moz-txt-link-freetext OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
shash="bwHYYnYTUxfeNb6qJ5LygMm6WaCSiSbUd3KkLFb9b351PA0R/moubdV7FGwQYEhTvw8VTw4vuo/ZNR7nCmOMGpyazgn4dWnsWe2ZcxrCP7OnE7G45XJ5Y9iZuOzhVFcx8f9YQibzef4JmuzF/9z/YnUw0ynwWLYbiaWgXf+YHRs="
originalsrc="https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5"
data-auth="Verified" data-loopstyle="linkonly"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>