<div dir="ltr">I thought private CAs for AMT were supported since AMT 7.0, which was circa-2010/2011 if I remember correctly?<div><br></div><div>Prior to that, Intel hard-coded a list of commercial CAs into the firmware of their chips, which is just... many levels of "don't do that". On the upside, it's possible to smoothly transition to new roots, for the commercial CAs still wanting to provide those certificates, by spinning up new roots, cross-signing new with old, issuing BR-compliant certs from new, and withdrawing old from root stores (so they could issue non-BR compliant certs). Basically, SHA-1 transition, but more structured, but I think that should only matter for hardware more than 10 years old, and I think the old stuff only supported SHA-1 anyways?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:53 PM Bruce Morton <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Morton@entrustdatacard.com">Bruce.Morton@entrustdatacard.com</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 lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_3443225002957742357WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Intel also uses the OU for Intel VPro/AMT use case where they require OU= Intel (R) Client Setup Certificate.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/software/software-applications/Intel_SCS_Deployment_Guide.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/software/software-applications/Intel_SCS_Deployment_Guide.pdf</a>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bruce.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Validation <<a href="mailto:validation-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank">validation-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Jeremy Rowley via Validation<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 2, 2020 4:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> CABforum3 <<a href="mailto:validation@cabforum.org" target="_blank">validation@cabforum.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabf_validation] Revision to OU requirements<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:red">WARNING:</span></strong> This email originated outside of Entrust Datacard.<br>
<strong><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:red">DO NOT CLICK</span></strong> links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yeah – we wanted to see what would happen if we turned it off. So far, there hasn’t been a lot of noise. This is the first one we’ve encountered.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">VMware generate the OU as part of the cert request to create a unique identifier. The tool uses that unique identifier to do the installation. Removing the OU is breaking the VMware install tool and causing it not to load the certificate.
We’re reaching out to them to see if we can get them to update their software and stop requiring OU.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" target="_blank">sleevi@google.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 2, 2020 2:23 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeremy Rowley <<a href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> CABforum3 <<a href="mailto:validation@cabforum.org" target="_blank">validation@cabforum.org</a>>; Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:rich@sectigo.com" target="_blank">rich@sectigo.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cabf_validation] Revision to OU requirements<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:14 PM Jeremy Rowley <<a href="mailto:jeremy.rowley@digicert.com" target="_blank">jeremy.rowley@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We’ve been working to shut off OU completely to see if there are issues with doing so. So far, we’ve found one automation tool that requires OU: <span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:Slack-Lato;color:black;background:rgb(248,248,248)"><a href="https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2044696" target="_blank">https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2044696</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Jeremy! I saw DigiCert was taking a good step here, in <a href="https://knowledge.digicert.com/alerts/ou-removal.html" target="_blank">https://knowledge.digicert.com/alerts/ou-removal.html</a> , and think that's a model for all CAs (by virtue of
the BRs)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm hoping you can share more details about the issue there. Are you saying the system doesn't load a publicly-trusted certificate if it's missing the OU field, or merely that their tool produces CSRs with the OU field populated, as part
of ensuring a globally unique DN?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Much like past work on working out interoperable, standards-based approaches to IP addresses ( <a href="https://cabforum.org/guidance-ip-addresses-certificates/" target="_blank">https://cabforum.org/guidance-ip-addresses-certificates/</a> ), it'd be great
to understand the problem more to see what options we have.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>