[Cscwg-public] Ballot CSC-1: Adopt Baseline Requirements Version 1.2

Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) dzacharo at harica.gr
Wed Jun 5 20:45:27 MST 2019


Harica votes "yes" to ballot CSC-1. 

Dimitris. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>
To: "cscwg-public at cabforum.org" <cscwg-public at cabforum.org>
Sent: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 22:44
Subject: Re: [Cscwg-public] Ballot CSC-1: Adopt Baseline Requirements Version 1.2

Pursuant to Bylaw 2.3 (3)), I hereby announce the end of the discussion
period and the start of the voting period by reposting the final version of
the ballot and clearly indicating that voting is to begin.

 

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows: 

 

Vote for approval (7 days) 

Start Time: 2019-06-05 16:00 Eastern                    End Time: 2019-06-11
16:00 Eastern

 

 

Purpose of Ballot: The plan is to adopt v. 1.2 of the Baseline Requirements
for the Issuance and Management of Publicly Trusted Code Signing
Certificates as a base document, and then to begin to make amendments to the
base document.  Adoption of this ballot will: (i) adopt written findings
concerning the provenance of the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
Management of Publicly Trusted Code Signing Certificates; and (ii) adopt
version 1.2 of such Baseline Requirements, subject to completion of the
60-day "Notice of Review Period" pursuant to Section 4.1 of Forum's IPR
Policy. 

The following motion has been proposed by Ben Wilson of DigiCert and
endorsed by Jason Cooper of Microsoft and Rich Smith of Sectigo. 

Ballot begins: 

Whereas between February 2013 and December 2015 members of the CA/Browser
Forum developed a set of requirements for Certification Authorities issuing
Code Signing Certificates (the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
Management of Publicly Trusted Code Signing Certificates" - referred to
herein as the "Baseline-Requirements-CSC"), and 

Whereas Ballot 158 from December 2015 failed to formally adopt the
Baseline-Requirements-CSC as Final Guidelines of the CA/B Forum, and 

Whereas the Code Signing Certificate Working Group (CSCWG) of the CA/Browser
Forum was duly chartered on March 8, 2019 by Ballot FORUM-8, and 

Whereas the Charter specifies that the CSCWG would continue to work on the
Baseline-Requirements-CSC, subject to the CSCWG making a written finding
that the provenance of such document is sufficiently covered by the Forum's
IPR Policy, and 

Whereas there is sufficient evidence to establish that the
Baseline-Requirements-CSC are covered by the Forum's IPR Policy, and 

Whereas, in order to continue such work, it is advisable that the CSCWG
adopt the Baseline-Requirements-CSC pursuant to procedures set forth in CA/B
Forum IPR Policy v.1.3 ("IPR 1.3"), which include a 60-day Review Period
during which a Draft Guideline may be reviewed for licensing obligations
with respect to any Essential Claims that may be encompassed by such Draft
Guideline. 

Now therefore, the CSCWG hereby makes the following written findings and,
pursuant to IPR 1.3, adopts the attached Baseline-Requirements-CSC, version
1.2, as a Forum Guideline. 

Findings 

1. On April 8, 2012, the CA/B Forum adopted Intellectual Rights Policy, v.
1.0. ("IPR 1.0") under which a contributor grants members a copyright
license to its Contributions for the purpose of developing and publishing
Draft Guidelines. 

2. Section 8.3 of IPR 1.0 defines "Contribution" as "material, including
Draft Guidelines, Draft Guideline text, and modifications to other
Contributions, made verbally or in a tangible form of expression (including
in electronic media) which is provided by a Participant in the process of
developing a Draft Guideline for the purpose of incorporating such material
into a Draft Guideline ." and "Draft Guideline" as "a version of a CAB Forum
guideline that has not been approved as a Final Guideline or Final
Maintenance Guideline, regardless of whether or not the Draft Guideline has
been published." 

3. Beginning with the February 2013 Face-to-Face meeting of the CA/B Forum,
the Forum started work on the Baseline-Requirements-CSC as a Draft
Guideline. 

4. From the period of March 2013 through November 2015, the group worked on
the Baseline-Requirements-CSC during bi-weekly teleconferences, at F2F
meetings, and over email. Reports of the effort were provided at CA/B Forum
meetings. 

5. The base document from which the Baseline-Requirements-CSC were developed
was the CA/Browser Forum's "Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of
Extended Validation Code Signing Certificates," licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. 

6. The entire work on the Baseline-Requirements-CSC was performed by members
of the CA/Browser Forum, as members of the CA/Browser Forum, all of whom
were bound by IPR 1.0. 

7. Any contributions from non-members of the CA/Browser Forum were subject
to IPR 1.0 because there is an IPR Agreement on file with the CA/Browser
Forum that covers the contribution by such entity. 

8. At the conclusion of the Review Period and adoption by the Forum of the
Baseline-Requirements-CSC as a Forum Guideline, the provenance and rights to
the Baseline-Requirements-CSC will be sufficiently established such that
they will be clearly covered by the Forum's IPR Policy. 

Ballot ends

Note:  Upon adoption by the CSCWG of this ballot, the Chair of the
CA/Browser Forum shall publish a "Notice of Review Period" (60 days)
pursuant to Section 4.1 of IPR 1.3 and attach a copy of the
Baseline-Requirements-CSC to such notice. 

---------- Document -------------

 

Version 1.2 (DATE)

 

 

 

 

Baseline Requirements

for the

Issuance and Management

of

Publicly-Trusted Code Signing Certificates 

 

 

 

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license.




 

 


1.                         Scope


The Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of
Publicly-Trusted Code Signing Certificates describe a subset of the
requirements that a Certification Authority must meet to issue
publicly-trusted Code Signing Certificates.  This document incorporates by
reference both the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of
Publicly-Trusted Certificates ("Baseline Requirements") and the Network and
Certificate System Security Requirements as established by the CA/Browser
Forum, copies of which are available on the CA/Browser Forum's website at
<http://www.cabforum.org> www.cabforum.org. 

The scope of these Requirements includes all "Code Signing Certificates", as
defined below, and associated Timestamp Authorities, and all Certification
Authorities technically capable of issuing Code Signing Certificates,
including any Root CA that is publicly trusted for code signing and all
other CAs that might serve to complete the validation path to such Root CA.
These Requirements do not address the issuance, use, maintenance, or
revocation of Certificates by enterprises that operate their own Public Key
Infrastructure for internal purposes only, where the Root CA Certificate is
not distributed by any Application Software Supplier (as defined in the
Baseline Requirements).


2.                         Purpose


The primary goal of these Requirements is to enable trusted signing of code
intended for public distribution, while addressing user concerns about the
trustworthiness of signed objects and accurately identifying the software
publisher.  The Requirements also serve to inform users about the purpose of
signed code, help users make informed decisions when relying on
Certificates, help establish the legitimacy of signed code, help maintain
the trustworthiness of software Platforms, help users  make informed
software choices, and limit the spread of malware.  Code signing
certificates do not identify a particular software object, identifying only
the distributor of software.


3.                         References


As specified in the Baseline Requirements.  Cross-references to Sections of
the Baseline Requirements are notated with the letters "BR", as in "BR
Section 1.2."

This document may also mention or refer to the CA/Browser Forum's Extended
Validation Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation
Certificates ("EV SSL Guidelines") and the Guidelines for the Issuance and
Management of Extended Validation Code Signing Certificates ("EV Code
Signing Guidelines"), also available on the CA/Browser Forum's website at
<http://www.cabforum.org> www.cabforum.org.


4.                         Definitions


Capitalized Terms are as defined in the Baseline Requirements except where
defined below:

Anti-Malware Organization: An entity that maintains information about
Suspect Code and/or develops software used to prevent, detect, or remove
malware.

Application Software Supplier: A supplier of software or other relying-party
application software that displays or uses Code Signing Certificates,
incorporates Root Certificates, and adopts these Requirements as all or part
of its requirements for participation in a root store program. 

Certification Authority: An organization subject to these Requirements that
is responsible for a Code Signing Certificate and, under these Requirements,
oversees the creation, issuance, revocation, and management of Code Signing
Certificates.  Where the CA is also the Root CA, references to the CA are
synonymous with Root CA.

Certificate Beneficiaries: As defined in section 7.1.1.

Certificate Requester: A natural person who is the Applicant, employed by
the Applicant, an authorized agent who has express authority to represent
the Applicant, or the employee or agent of a third party (such as software
publisher) who completes and submits a Certificate Request on behalf of the
Applicant.

Code Signature: A Signature logically associated with a signed Object.

Code Signing Certificate: A digital certificate issued by a CA that contains
a code Signing EKU, contains the anyExtendedKeyUsage EKU, or omits the EKU
extension and is trusted in an Application Software Provider's root store to
sign software objects. [NOTE: Appendix B, subsection (3) of Appendix B
requires the presence of the codeSigning EKU and prohibits use of the
anyExtendedKeyUsage EKU.]

Declaration of Identity: A written document that consists of the following:

1.	the identity of the person performing the verification,
2.	a signature of the Applicant,
3.	a unique identifying number from an identification document of the
Applicant,
4.	the date of the verification, and
5.	a signature of the Verifying Person. 

Effective Date: The date this document is adopted as a root store
requirement by an Application Software Supplier.

High Risk Region of Concern (HRRC): As set forth in Appendix D, a geographic
location where the detected number of Code Signing Certificates associated
with signed Suspect Code exceeds 5% of the total number of detected Code
Signing Certificates originating or associated with the same geographic
area.  

Issuer: The CA providing a Code Signing Certificate to the Subscriber.

Individual Applicant: An Applicant who is a natural person and requests a
Certificate that will list the Applicant's legal name as the Certificate's
Subject.

Lifetime Signing OID: An optional extended key usage OID
(1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.13) used by Microsoft Authenticode to limit the
lifetime of the code signature to the expiration of the code signing
certificate. 

Object: A contiguous set of bits that has been or can be digitally signed
with a Private Key that corresponds to a Code Signing Certificate; also
referred to herein as "Code".

Organizational Applicant: An Applicant that requests a Certificate with a
name in the Subject field that is for an organization and not the name of an
individual.  Organizational Applicants include private and public
corporations, LLCs, partnerships, government entities, non-profit
organizations, trade associations, and other legal entities.

Platform: The computing environment in which an Application Software
Supplier uses Code Signing Certificates, incorporates Root Certificates, and
adopts these Requirements.

QGIS: As defined in the EV SSL Guidelines.

QIIS: As defined in the EV SSL Guidelines.

Registration Identifier: The unique code assigned to an Applicant by the
Incorporating or Registration Agency in such entity's Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Registration.

Requirements: This document, the Baseline Requirements, and the Network and
Certificate System Security Requirements.

Signature: An encrypted electronic data file which is attached to or
logically associated with other electronic data and which (i) identifies and
is uniquely linked to the signatory of the electronic data, (ii) is created
using means that the signatory can maintain under its sole control, and
(iii) is linked in a way so as to make any subsequent changes that have been
made to the electronic data detectable.

Signing Service: An organization that signs an Object on behalf of a
Subscriber using a Private Key associated with a Code Signing Certificate.

Subscriber: The Subject of a Code Signing Certificate.  A Subscriber is the
entity responsible for distributing the software but does not necessarily
hold the copyright to any software.

Suspect Code: Code that contains malicious functionality or serious
vulnerabilities, including spyware, malware and other code that installs
without the user's consent and/or resists its own removal, and code that can
be exploited in ways not intended by its designers to compromise the
trustworthiness of the Platforms on which it executes.

Takeover Attack: An attack where a Signing Service or Private Key associated
with a Code Signing Certificate has been compromised by means of fraud,
theft, intentional malicious act of the Subject's agent, or other illegal
conduct.

Timestamp Authority: A service operated by the CA or a delegated third party
for its own code signing certificate users that timestamps data using a
certificate chained to a public root, thereby asserting that the data (or
the data from which the data were derived via a secure hashing algorithm)
existed at the specified time. If the Timestamp Authority is delegated to a
third party, the CA is responsible that the delegated third party complies
with these guidelines.

Timestamp Certificate: A certificate issued to a Timestamp Authority to use
to timestamp data.

Trusted Platform Module: A microcontroller that stores keys, passwords and
digital certificates, usually affixed to the motherboard of a computer,
which due to its physical nature makes the information stored there more
secure against external software attack or physical theft.

Verifying Person: A notary, attorney, Latin notary, accountant, individual
designated by a government agency as authorized to verify identities, or
agent of the CA, who attests to the identity of an individual. 

 


5.                         Abbreviations and Acronyms


As specified in the Baseline Requirements.


6.                         Conventions


Terms not otherwise defined in these Requirements are as defined in the CA's
applicable agreements, user manuals, Certificate Policies, and Certification
Practice Statements.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in these
Requirements are used in accordance with RFC 2119.


7.                         Certificate Warranties and Representations


7.1                          Certificate Beneficiaries


Certificate Beneficiaries means any one of the following:

1.	All Application Software Suppliers with whom the Issuer or its Root
CA has entered into a contract for distribution of its Root Certificate in
software distributed by such Application Software Suppliers, or
2.	All Relying Parties who reasonably rely on such a Certificate while
a Signature associated with the Certificate is valid.


7.2                          Certificate Warranties


1.	Compliance. The Issuer and any Signing Service each represents that
it has complied with these Requirements and the applicable Certificate
Policy and Certification Practice Statement in issuing each Code Signing
Certificate and operating its PKI or Signing Service. 
2.	Identity of Subscriber: At the time of issuance, the Issuer or
Signing Service represents that it (i) operated a procedure for verifying
the identity of the Subscriber that at least meets the requirements in
Section 11 of this document, (ii) followed the procedure when issuing or
managing the Certificate, and (iii) accurately described the same procedure
in the Issuer's Certificate Policy or Certification Practice Statement.
3.	Authorization for Certificate: At the time of issuance, the Issuer
represents that it (i) operated a procedure for verifying that the Applicant
authorized the issuance of the Certificate, (ii) followed the procedure, and
(iii) accurately described the same procedure in the Issuer's Certificate
Policy or Certification Practice Statement.
4.	Accuracy of Information: At the time of issuance, the Issuer
represents that it (i) operated a procedure for verifying that all of the
information contained in the Certificate (with the exception of the
subject:organizationalUnitName attribute) was true and accurate, (ii)
followed the procedure, and (iii) accurately  described the same procedure
in the CA's Certificate Policy or Certification Practice Statement.
5.	Key Protection: The Issuer represents that it provided the
Subscriber at the time of issuance with documentation on how to securely
store and prevent the misuse of Private Keys associated with Code Signing
Certificates, or in the case of a Signing Service, securely stored and
prevented the misuse of Private Keys associated with Code Signing
Certificates;
6.	Subscriber Agreement:  The Issuer and Signing Service represent that
the Issuer or Signing Service entered into a legally valid and enforceable
Subscriber Agreement with the Applicant that satisfies these Requirements.
7.	Status: The CA represents that it will maintain a 24 x 7
online-accessible Repository with current information regarding the status
of Certificates as valid or revoked for the period required by these
Requirements.
8.	Revocation: The CA represents that it will revoke a Certificate upon
the occurrence of a revocation event specified in these Requirements.


7.3                          Applicant Warranty


The Issuer or Signing Service MUST require, as part of the Subscriber
Agreement, that the Applicant make the commitments and warranties set forth
in Section 10.3.2 and/or Section 10.3.3 of this document, as applicable, for
the benefit of the Issuer and the Certificate Beneficiaries.


8.                         Community and Applicability


8.1                          Compliance


The CA and/or all Signing Services MUST, at all times:

1.	Comply with all laws applicable to its business and the Certificates
it issues in each jurisdiction where it operates,
2.	Comply with these Requirements,
3.	Comply with the audit requirements set forth in Section 17 of this
document, and
4.	If a CA, be licensed as a CA in each jurisdiction where it operates,
if licensing is required by the law of such jurisdiction for the issuance of
Certificates.

If a court or government body with jurisdiction over the activities covered
by these Requirements determines that the performance of any mandatory
requirement is illegal, then such requirement is considered reformed to the
minimum extent necessary to make the requirement valid and legal. This
applies only to operations or certificate issuances that are subject to the
laws of that jurisdiction.  The parties involved MUST notify the Application
Software Suppliers of the facts, circumstances, and law(s) involved.


8.2                          Certificate Policies  


8.2.1                  Implementation


The CA and its Root CA MUST develop, implement, enforce, display prominently
on its Web site, and periodically update its policies and practices,
including its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement,
that implement the most current version of these Requirements.

With the exception of revocation checking for time-stamped and expired
Certificates, Platforms are expected to validate Code Signatures in
accordance with RFC 5280 when first encountered. Subsequent signature
validation MAY ignore revocation, especially if rejecting the Code will
cause the device to fail to boot.  When a Platform encounters a Certificate
that fails to validate due to revocation, the Platform should not permit the
Code to execute.  When a Platform encounters a Certificate that fails to
validate for reasons other than revocation, the Platform should treat the
Code as unsigned.

Ordinarily, a Code Signature created by a Subscriber is only considered
valid until expiration of the Certificate.  However, the "Timestamp" method
and the "Signing Service" methods permit Code to remain valid for longer
periods of time.

1.    Timestamp Method: In this method, the Subscriber signs the Code,
appends its Code Signing Certificate and submits it to a Timestamp Authority
to be time-stamped.  The resulting package can be considered valid after
expiration of the Code Signing Certificate. 

2.    Signing Service Method: In this method, the Subscriber uses the
service to sign compiled code, binary, file, app, or similar object.
Alternatively, the service MAY sign a digest of the preceding objects.  The
resulting Code Signature is valid up to the expiration time of the Signing
Service's Code Signing Certificate and any applicable revocation date,
whichever comes first. Signing Services MAY also timestamp signed objects.

 


8.2.2                  Disclosure


Each CA, including Root CAs, MUST publicly disclose their policies and
practices through an appropriate and readily accessible online means that is
available on a 24x7 basis.  The CA MUST publicly disclose its Certificate
Practice Statement and/or Certificate Policies and structure the disclosures
in accordance with either RFC 2527 or RFC 3647.


8.3                          Commitment to Comply 


Each CA MUST give public effect to these Requirements and represent that
they will adhere to the latest published version by either (i) incorporating
the Requirements directly into their respective Certification Practice
Statements or (ii) by referencing the Requirements using a clause such as
the following:

[Name of CA] conforms to the current version of the Baseline Requirements
for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Code Signing
Certificates published at [URL].  If there is any inconsistency between this
document and those Requirements, those Requirements take precedence over
this document.

In either case, each CA MUST include a link to the official version of these
Requirements.  In addition, each CA MUST include (directly or by reference)
applicable parts of these Requirements in all contracts with Subordinate
CAs, RAs, Signing Services and subcontractors, that involve or relate to the
issuance or management of  Certificates.  CAs MUST enforce compliance with
such terms.


8.4                          Trust model


Each CA MUST represent that it has disclosed all Cross Certificates in its
Certificate Policy/Certificate Practice Statement that identify the CA as
the Subject, provided that the CA arranged for or accepted the establishment
of the trust relationship (i.e. the Cross Certificate at issue).


9.                         Certificate Content and Profile


9.1                          Issuer Information


As specified in BR Section 7.1.4.1.


9.2                          Subject Information


Code Signing Certificates issued to Subscribers MUST include the following
information in the fields listed:


9.2.1                  Subject Alternative Name Extension


No Stipulation 


9.2.2                  Subject Common Name Field


Certificate Field: subject:commonName (OID 2.5.4.3)


Required/Optional: Required

Contents: This field MUST contain the Subject's legal name as verified under
BR Section 3.2. 


9.2.3                  Subject Domain Component Field


This field MUST not be present in a Code Signing Certificate.


9.2.4                  Subject Distinguished Name Fields


a.                 Certificate Field: subject:organizationName (OID
2.5.4.10) 

               Required/Optional: Required. 

               Contents: The subject:organizationName field MUST contain
either the Subject's name or DBA as verified under BR Section 3.2.  The CA
MAY include information in this field that differs slightly from the
verified name, such as common variations or abbreviations, provided that the
CA documents the difference and any abbreviations used are locally accepted
abbreviations; e.g., if the official record shows "Company Name
Incorporated", the CA MAY use "Company Name Inc." or "Company Name".
Because subject name attributes for individuals (e.g. givenName (2.5.4.42)
and surname (2.5.4.4)) are not broadly supported by application software,
the CA MAY use the subject:organizationName field to convey a natural person
Subject's name or DBA. The  CA MUST have a documented process for verifying
that the information included in the subject:organizationName field is not
misleading to a Relying Party.

b.                 Certificate Field: Number and street:
subject:streetAddress (OID: 2.5.4.9) 

               Required/Optional: Optional. 

               Contents: If present, the subject:streetAddress field MUST
contain the Subject's street address information as verified under BR
Section 3.2.2.1 or 3.2.3. 

c.                                 Certificate Field: subject:localityName
(OID: 2.5.4.7) 

               Required/Optional: Required if the
subject:stateOrProvinceName field is absent. Optional if the
subject:stateOrProvinceName field is present. 

               Contents: If present, the subject:localityName field MUST
contain the Subject's locality information as verified under BR Section 3.2.
If the subject:countryName field specifies the ISO 3166-1 user-assigned code
of XX in accordance with BR Section 7.1.4.2.2.g., the localityName field MAY
contain the Subject's locality and/or state or province information as
verified under BR Section 3.2.2.1 or 3.2.3. 

d.                 Certificate Field: subject:stateOrProvinceName (OID:
2.5.4.8) 

               Required/Optional: Required if the subject:localityName field
is absent.  Optional if thesubject:localityName field is present. 

               Contents: If present, the subject:stateOrProvinceName field
MUST contain the Subject's state or province information as verified under
BR Section 3.2.2.1 or 3.2.3.  If the subject:countryName field specifies the
ISO 3166-1 user-assigned code of XX in accordance with BR Section
7.1.4.2.2.g., the subject:stateOrProvinceName field MAY contain the full
name of the Subject's country information as verified under BR Section
3.2.2.3. 

e.                 Certificate Field: subject:postalCode (OID: 2.5.4.17) 

               Required/Optional: Optional

               Contents: If present, the subject:postalCode field MUST
contain the Subject's zip or postal information as verified under BR Section
3.2.2.1 or 3.2.3.

f.                  Certificate Field: subject:countryName (OID: 2.5.4.6) 

               Required/Optional: Required 

               Contents: The subject:countryName MUST contain the two-letter
ISO 3166-1 country code associated with the location of the Subject verified
under BR Section 3.2.2.3.  If a Country is not represented by an official
ISO 3166-1 country code, the CA MAY specify the ISO 3166-1 user-assigned
code of XX indicating that an official ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code has not been
assigned. 


9.2.5                  Reserved


9.2.6                  Subject Organizational Unit Field


Certificate Field: subject:organizationalUnitName 

Required/Optional: Optional. 

Contents: The CA MUST implement a process that prevents an OU attribute from
including a name, DBA, tradename, trademark, address, location, or other
text that refers to a specific natural person or Legal Entity unless the CA
has verified this information in accordance with BR Section 3.2.


9.2.7                  Reserved


9.2.8                  Other Subject Attributes

As specified in BR Section             7.1.4.2.2.i.


9.3                          Certificate Policy Identification


This section sets forth minimum requirements for the content of the
Subscriber, Subordinate CA, and Root CA Certificates, as they relate to the
identification of Certificate Policy. 


9.3.1
Certificate Policy Identifiers  


The following Certificate Policy Identifier is reserved for use by CAs as a
required means of asserting compliance with these Requirements as follows: 

{joint-iso-itu-t(2) international-organizations(23) ca-browser-forum(140)
certificate-policies(1) code-signing-requirements(4) code signing(1)}
(2.23.140.1.4.1) 


9.3.2                  Root CA Requirements


A Root CA Certificate SHOULD NOT contain the certificatePolicies extension. 


9.3.3                  Subordinate CA Certificates


A Certificate issued after the Effective Date to a Subordinate CA that is
not an Affiliate of the Issuing CA: 

1.    MUST include the policy identifier specified in Section 9.3.1 that
indicates the Subordinate CA's  adherence to and compliance with these
Requirements (i.e. either the CA/Browser Forum reserved identifiers or
identifiers defined by the CA in its Certificate Policy and/or Certification
Practice Statement), and 

2.    MUST NOT contain the "anyPolicy" identifier (2.5.29.32.0). 

A Certificate issued after the Effective Date to a Subordinate CA that is an
affiliate of the Issuing CA:          

1.    MUST include the CA/Browser Forum reserved identifier specified in
Section 9.3.1 to indicate the Subordinate CA's compliance with these
Requirements, and 

2.    MAY contain the "anyPolicy" identifier (2.5.29.32.0) in place of an
explicit policy identifier. 

A Subordinate CA MUST represent, in its Certificate Policy and/or
Certification Practice Statement, that all Certificates containing a policy
identifier indicating compliance with these Requirements are issued and
managed in accordance with these Requirements.                


9.3.4                  Subscriber Certificates


A Certificate issued to a Subscriber MUST contain one or more policy
identifier(s), defined by the CA, in the Certificate's certificatePolicies
extension that indicates adherence to and compliance with these
Requirements.  CAs complying with these Requirements MAY also assert the
reserved policy OIDs in such Certificates.

The CA MUST document in its Certificate Policy or Certification Practice
Statement that the Certificates it issues containing the specified policy
identifier(s) are managed in accordance with these Requirements.


9.4                          Maximum Validity Period


Subscribers and Signing Authorities MAY sign Code at any point in the
development or distribution process.  Code Signatures may be verified at any
time, including during download, unpacking, installation, reinstallation, or
execution, or during a forensic investigation. 

The validity period for a Code Signing Certificate issued to a Subscriber or
Signing Service MUST NOT exceed 39 months.

The Timestamp Authority MUST use a new Timestamp Certificate with a new
private key no later than every 15 months to minimize the impact to users in
the event that a Timestamp Certificate's private key is compromised.  The
validity for a Time Stamp Certificate must not exceed 135 months. The
Timestamp Certificate MUST meet the "Minimum Cryptographic Algorithm and Key
Size Requirements" in Appendix A for the communicated time period.


9.5                          Subscriber Public Key


The CA SHALL reject a certificate request if the requested Public Key does
not meet the requirements set forth in Appendix A or if it has a known weak
Private Key (such as a Debian weak key, see
<http://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys> http://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys).


9.6                           Certificate Serial Number


As specified in BR Section 7.1.


9.7                          Reserved


9.8                          Reserved


10.                   Certificate Request


10.1                      Documentation Requirements


As specified in BR Section 5.4.1.


10.2                      Certificate Request 


10.2.1              General


Prior to the issuance of a Certificate, the CA MUST obtain from the
Applicant a request for a certificate in a form prescribed by the CA and
that complies with these Requirements. One request MAY suffice for multiple
Certificates to be issued to the same Applicant, subject to the aging and
updating requirement in Section 11.3, provided that each Certificate is
supported by a valid, current request signed by the appropriate Applicant
Representative on behalf of the Applicant. The request MAY be made,
submitted and/or signed electronically. 

Prior to signing an Object, the Signing Authority MUST obtain from the
Applicant a signing request in a form prescribed by the Signing Authority
and that complies with these Requirements. One signing request MAY suffice
for multiple signatures for the same Applicant, subject to the requirements
specified herein. The signing request MAY be made, submitted and/or signed
electronically.


10.2.2              Request and Certification


The certificate requestor signing request MUST contain a request from, or on
behalf of, the Applicant and a certification by, or on behalf of, the
Applicant that all of the information contained therein is correct.  


10.2.3              Information Requirements


The certificate request or signing request MAY include all factual
information about the Applicant necessary to issue the Certificate or sign
the Object, and such additional information as is necessary for the CA or
Signing Authority to obtain from the Applicant in order to comply with these
Requirements and the CA's Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice
Statement. In cases where the certificate request or signing request does
not contain all the necessary information about the Applicant, the CA or
Signing Service MUST obtain the remaining information from the Applicant or,
having obtained it from a reliable, independent, third-party data source,
confirm it with the Applicant. The CA or Signing Service MUST establish and
follow a documented procedure for verifying all data requested for inclusion
in the Certificate by the Applicant.


10.2.4              Subscriber Private Key


If the CA or any Delegated Third Party is generating the Private Key on
behalf of the Subscriber where the Private Keys will be transported to the
Subscriber outside of the Signing Service's secure infrastructure, then the
entity generating the Private Key MUST either transport the Private Key in
hardware with an activation method that is equivalent to 128 bits of
encryption or encrypt the Private Key with at least 128 bits of encryption
strength.  Allowed methods include using a 128-bit AES key to wrap the
private key or storing the key in a PKCS 12 file encrypted with a randomly
generated password of more than 16 characters containing uppercase letters,
lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols for transport.  

For Certificates transported outside of a Signing Service's secure
infrastructure, the CA or Signing Service MUST require, by contract, each
Subscriber to generate their own Private Key and protect the Private Key in
accordance with Section 16.2 ("Private Key Protection").


10.3                      Subscriber Agreement


10.3.1              General


As specified in BR Section 9.6.3. 


10.3.2              Agreement Requirements


The Applicant MUST make the following obligations and warranties through a
Subscriber Agreement or Terms of Use: 

1.	Accuracy of Information: To provide accurate and complete
information at all times in connection with the issuance of a Certificate,
including in the Certificate Request and as otherwise requested by the CA.
2.	Protection of Private Key: Where the key is available outside a
Signing Service, to maintain sole control of, keep confidential, and
properly protect, at all times in accordance with Section 16, the Private
Key that corresponds to the Public Key to be included in the requested
Certificate(s) (and any associated activation data or device, e.g. password
or token).  The CA MUST provide the Subscriber with documentation on how to
protect a Private Key.  The CA MAY provide this documentation as a white
paper or as part of the Subscriber Agreement. The Subscriber MUST represent
that it will generate and operate any device storing private keys in a
secure manner, as described in a document of code signing best practices,
which the CA MUST provide to the Subscriber during the ordering process. The
CA MUST obligate the Subscriber to use passwords that are randomly generated
with at least 16 characters containing uppercase letters, lowercase letters,
numbers, and symbols to transport private keys.  
3.	Private Key Reuse: To not apply for a Code Signing Certificate if
the Public Key in the Certificate is or will be used with a non-Code Signing
Certificate.  
4.	Use: To use the Certificate and associated Private Key only for
authorized and legal purposes, including not using the Certificate to sign
Suspect Code and to use the Certificate and Private Key solely in compliance
with all applicable laws and solely in accordance with the Subscriber
Agreement or Terms of Use.
5.	Compliance with Industry Standards: An acknowledgment and acceptance
that the CA may modify the Subscriber Agreement or Terms of Use when
necessary to comply with any changes in these Requirements or the Baseline
Requirements.
6.	Prevention of Misuse: To provide adequate network and other security
controls to protect against misuse of the Private Key and that the CA will
revoke the Certificate without requiring prior notification if there is
unauthorized access to the Private Keys.
7.	Acceptance of Certificate: Not to use the Certificate until after
the Applicant, or an agent of Applicant, has reviewed and verified the
Certificate contents for accuracy. 
8.	Reporting and Revocation: To promptly cease using a Certificate and
its associated Private Key and promptly request that the CA revoke the
Certificate if the Subscriber believes that (a) any information in the
Certificate is, or becomes, incorrect or inaccurate, (b) the Private Key
associated with the Public Key contained in the Certificate was misused or
compromised, or (c) there is evidence that the Certificate was used to sign
Suspect Code.
9.	Sharing of Information: An acknowledgment and acceptance that, if:
(a) the Certificate or the Applicant is identified as a source of Suspect
Code, (b) the authority to request the Certificate cannot be verified, or
(c) the Certificate is revoked for reasons other than Subscriber request
(e.g. as a result of private key compromise, discovery of malware, etc.),
then the CA is authorized to share information about the Applicant, signed
application, Certificate, and surrounding circumstances with other CAs or
industry groups, including the CA/Browser Forum. 
10.	Termination of Use of Certificate: To promptly cease using the
Private Key corresponding to the Public Key listed in a Certificate upon
expiration or revocation of the Certificate. 
11.	Acknowledgment and Acceptance: An acknowledgement and acceptance
that the CA is entitled to revoke the certificate immediately if the
Applicant were to violate the Terms of Use or the Subscriber Agreement.


10.3.3              Service Agreement Requirements for Signing Authorities


The CA MUST contractually obligate each Signing Service to inform the CA if
the Signing Service becomes aware (by whatever means) that the Signing
Service has signed Suspect Code.  The CA MUST require the Signing Service to
request revocation of the affected Certificate and provide immediate notice
to the CA if the Signing Service's private key, or private key activation
data, is compromised or believed to be compromised.  The CA MUST revoke the
affected Certificate upon request by the Signing Service or if the CA
determines the Signing Service failed to notify the CA within 24 hours after
identifying a private key compromise.

Signing Authorities MUST obtain the Subscriber's commitment to: 

1.    Use such signing services solely for authorized purposes that comply
with the Subscriber Agreement/Terms of Use, these Requirements, and all
applicable laws,

2.    Not knowingly submit software for signature that contains Suspect
Code, and

3.    Inform the Signing Service if it is discovered (by whatever means)
that code submitted to the Signing Service for signature contained Suspect
Code.


11.                   Verification Practices


11.1                      Verification of Organizational Applicants


Prior to issuing a Code Signing Certificate to an Organizational Applicant,
the Issuer MUST:

1.	Verify the Subject's legal identity, including any DBA proposed for
inclusion in a Certificate, in accordance with Section 11.1.1 and 11.1.2 of
this document, 
2.	Verify the Subject's address in accordance with Section 11.1.1 of
this document, 
3.	Verify the Certificate Requester's authority to request a Code
Signing Certificate and the authenticity of the Certificate Request using a
Reliable Method of Communication in accordance with BR Section 3.2.5., and
4.	If the Subject's or Subject's Affiliate's, Parent Company's, or
Subsidiary Company's date of formation, as indicated by either a QIIS or
QGIS, was less than three years prior to the date of the Certificate
Request, verify the identity of the Certificate Requester. 


11.1.1
Organization Identity and Address


As specified in BR Section 3.2.2.1.  The CA MUST also obtain, whenever
available, a specific Registration Identifier assigned to the Applicant by a
government agency in the jurisdiction of the Applicant's legal creation,
existence, or recognition. 


11.1.2               DBA/Tradename


As specified in BR Section 3.2.2.2.


11.1.3              Requester Authority 


As specified in BR Section 3.2.5.


11.2                      Verification of Individual Applicants 


Prior to issuing a Code Signing Certificate to an Individual Applicant, the
CA MUST:

1.	Verify the Subject's identity under Section 11.2.1 of this document,
and 
2.	Verify the authenticity of the identity under Section 11.2.2 of this
document. 


11.2.1              Individual Identity


The CA MUST verify the Applicant's identity using one of the following
processes:

1.           The CA MUST obtain a legible copy, which discernibly shows the
Requester's face, of at least one currently valid government-issued photo ID
(passport, driver's license, military ID, national ID, or equivalent
document type).  The CA MUST inspect the copy for any indication of
alteration or falsification. The CA MUST also verify the address of the
Requester using (i) a government-issued photo ID, (ii) a QIIS or QGIS, or
(iii) an access code to activate the Certificate where the access code was
physically mailed to the Requester; OR

2.          The CA MUST have the Requester digitally sign the Certificate
Request using a valid personal Certificate that was issued under one of the
following adopted standards: Qualified Certificates issued pursuant to ETSI
TS 101 862, IGTF, Adobe Signing Certificate issued under the AATL or CDS
program, the Kantara identity assurance framework at level 2, NIST SP 800-63
at level 2, or the FBCA CP at Basic or higher assurance. 


11.2.2              Authenticity of Identity


The CA MUST verify the authenticity of the Certificate Request using one of
the following:

1.      Having the Requester provide a photo of the Requester holding the
submitted government-issued photo ID where the photo is of sufficient
quality to read both the name listed on the photo ID and the issuing
authority; OR

2.      Having the CA perform an in-person or web camera-based verification
of the Requester where an employee or contractor of the CA can see the
Requester, review the Requester's photo ID, and confirm that the Requester
is the individual identified in the submitted photo ID; OR

3.      Having the CA obtain an executed Declaration of Identity of the
Requester that includes at least one unique biometric identifier (such as a
fingerprint or handwritten signature).  The CA MUST confirm the document's
authenticity directly with the Verifying Person using contact information
confirmed with a QIIS or QGIS; OR

4.      Verifying that the digital signature used to sign the Request under
Section 11.2.1(2) is a valid signature and originated from a Certificate
issued at the appropriate level of assurance as evidenced by the certificate
chain.  Acceptable verification under this section includes validation that
the Certificate was issued by a CA qualified by the entity responsible for
adopting, enforcing, or maintaining the adopted standard and chains to an
intermediate certificate or root certificate designated as complying with
such standard. 


11.3                      Age of Certificate Data


As specified in BR Section 3.3.1.


11.4                      Denied List


As specified in BR Section 4.1.1.


11.5                      High Risk Certificate Requests


In addition to the procedures required by BR Section 4.2.1, prior to issuing
a Code Signing Certificate, each CA SHOULD check at least one database
containing information about known or suspected producers, publishers, or
distributors of Suspect Code, as identified or indicated by an Anti-Malware
Organization and any database of deceptive names maintained by an
Application Software Provider.  The CA MUST determine whether the entity is
identified as requesting a Code Signing Certificate from a High Risk Region
of Concern.  The CA MUST also maintain and check an internal database
listing Certificates revoked due to Signatures on Suspect Code and previous
certificate requests rejected by the CA. 

A CA identifying a high risk application under this section MUST follow the
additional procedures defined in Section 11.7 of this document to ensure
that the applicant will protect its Private Keys and not sign Suspect Code. 

[These requirements do not specify a particular database and leave the
decision of qualifying databases to the implementers.]


11.6                      Data Source Accuracy


As specified in BR Section 3.2.2.7.


11.7                        Processing High Risk Applications 


CAs MUST not issue new or replacement Code Signing Certificates to an entity
that the CA determined intentionally signed Suspect Code.  The CA MUST keep
meta-data about the reason for revoking a Code Signing Certificate as proof
that the Code Signing Certificate was not revoked because the Applicant was
intentionally signing Suspect Code.

CAs MAY issue new or replacement Code Signing Certificates to an entity who
is the victim of a documented Takeover Attack, resulting in either a loss of
control of their code-signing service or loss of the Private Key associated
with their Code Signing Certificate.  

If the CA is aware that the Applicant was the victim of a Takeover Attack,
the CA MUST verify that the Applicant is protecting its Code Signing Private
Keys under Section 16.3(1) or Section 16.3(2).  The CA MUST verify the
Applicant's compliance with Section 16.3(1) or Section 16.3(2) (i) through
technical means that confirm the Private Keys are protected using the method
described in 16.3(1) or 16.3.2(2) or (ii) by relying on a report provided by
the Applicant that is signed by an auditor who is approved by the CA and who
has IT and security training or is a CISA.

Documentation of a Takeover Attack MAY include a police report (validated by
the CA) or public news report that admits that the attack took place.  The
Subscriber MUST provide a report from an auditor with IT and security
training or a CISA that provides information on how the Subscriber was
storing and using Private keys and how the intended solution for better
security meets the guidelines for improved security.

Except where issuance is expressly authorized by the Application Software
Supplier, CAs MUST not issue new Code Signing Certificates to an entity
where the CA is aware that the entity has been the victim of two Takeover
Attacks or where the CA is aware that entity breached a requirement under
this Section to protect Private Keys under either Section 16.3(1) or
16.3(2).


11.8                      Due Diligence


1.    The results of the verification processes and procedures outlined in
these Requirements are intended to be viewed both individually and as a
group. Thus, after all of the verification processes and procedures are
completed, the CA MUST have a person who is not responsible for the
collection of information review all of the information and  documentation
assembled in support of the Code Signing Certificate application and look
for discrepancies or other details requiring further explanation.

2.    The CA MUST obtain and document further explanation or clarification
from Applicant and other sources of information, as necessary, to resolve
those discrepancies or details that require further explanation. 

3.    The CA MUST refrain from issuing a Code Signing Certificate until all
of the information and documentation assembled in support of the Certificate
is such that issuance of the Certificate will not communicate factual
information that the CA knows, or with the exercise of due diligence should
discover from the assembled information and documentation, to be inaccurate.
If satisfactory explanation and/or additional documentation are not received
within a reasonable time, the CA MUST decline the Certificate request and
SHOULD notify the Applicant accordingly.


12.                   Certificate Issuance by a Root CA 


Certificate issuance by the Root CA MUST require an individual authorized by
the CA (i.e. the CA system operator, system officer, or PKI administrator)
to deliberately issue a direct command in order for the Root CA to perform a
certificate signing operation. 

Root CA Private Keys MUST NOT be used to directly sign Certificates.


13.                   Certificate Revocation and Status Checking


13.1                      Revocation


13.1.1              Revocation Request


As specified in BR Section 4.9.3.


13.1.2              Certificate Problem Reporting


The CA MUST provide Anti-Malware Organizations, Subscribers, Relying
Parties, Application Software Suppliers, and other third parties with clear
instructions on how they can report suspected Private Key Compromise,
Certificate misuse, Certificates used to sign Suspect Code, Takeover
Attacks, or other types of possible fraud, compromise, misuse, inappropriate
conduct, or any other matter related to Certificates.  The CA MUST publicly
disclose the instructions on its website.  

 


13.1.3              Investigation


The CA MUST begin investigating Certificate Problem Reports within
twenty-four hours of receipt, and decide whether revocation or other
appropriate action is warranted based on at least the following criteria: 

1.            The nature of the alleged problem (adware, spyware, malware,
software bug, etc.), 

2.            The number of Certificate Problem Reports received about a
particular Certificate or Subscriber, 

3.            The entity making the report (for example, a notification from
an Anti-Malware Organization or law enforcement agency carries more weight
than an anonymous complaint), and 

4.            Relevant legislation. 


13.1.4              Response

The CA MUST maintain a continuous 24x7 ability to communicate with
Anti-Malware Organizations, Application Software Suppliers, and law
enforcement agencies and respond to high-priority Certificate Problem
Reports, such as reports requesting revocation of  Certificates used to sign
malicious code, fraud, or other illegal conduct. 

The CA MUST acknowledge receipt of plausible notices about Suspect Code
signed with a certificate issued by the CA or a Subordinate CA.   


13.1.5              Reasons for Revoking a Subscriber Certificate


A CA MUST revoke a Code Signing Certificate in any of the four
circumstances: (1) the Application Software Supplier requests revocation,
(2) the subscriber requests revocation, , (3) a third party provides
information that leads the CA to believe that the certificate is compromised
or is being used for Suspect Code, or (4) the CA otherwise decides that the
certificate should be revoked.  This section describes the CA's obligations
for each scenario.

13.1.5.1 Revocation Based on an Application Software Supplier's Request

If the Application Software Supplier requests the CA revoke because the
Application Software Supplier believes that a Certificate attribute is
deceptive, or that the Certificate is being used for malware, bundle ware,
unwanted software, or some other illicit purpose, then the Application
Software Supplier may request that the CA revoke the certificate.

Within two (2) business days of receipt of the request, the CA MUST either
revoke the certificate or inform the Application Software Supplier that it
is conducting an investigation. 

If the CA decides to conduct an investigation, it MUST inform the
Application Software Supplier whether or not it will revoke the Certificate,
within two (2) business days. 

If the CA decides that the revocation will have an unreasonable impact on
its customer, then the CA MUST propose an alternative course of action to
the Application Software Supplier based on its investigation. 

 

 

13.1.5.2 Revocation Based on the Subscriber's Request

The CA MUST revoke a Code Signing Certificate within one (1) business day if
the Subscriber requests in writing that the CA revoke the Certificate or
notifies the CA that the original certificate request was not authorized and
does not retroactively grant authorization.

13.1.5.3 Revocation Based on Reported or Detected Compromise or Use in
Malware

For all incidents involving malware, CAs SHALL revoke the Code Signing
Certificate in accordance with and within the following maximum timeframes.
Nothing herein prohibits a CA from revoking a Code Signing Certificate prior
to these timeframes.  

1)      The CA MUST contact the software publisher within one (1) business
day after the CA is made aware of the incident. 

2)      The CA MUST determine the volume of relying parties that are
impacted (e.g., based on OCSP logs) within 72 hours after being made aware
of the incident. 

3)     The CA MUST request the software publisher send an acknowledgement to
the CA within 72 hours of receipt of the request. 

  a.      If the publisher responds within 72 hours, the CA and publisher
MUST determine a "reasonable date" to revoke the certificate based on
discussions with the CA. 

  b.      If CA does not receive a response, the CA must notify the
publisher that the CA will revoke in 7 days if no further response is
received. 

               i.      If the publisher responds within 7 days, the CA and
the publisher will determine a "reasonable date" to revoke the certificate
based on discussion with the CA. 

              ii.      If no response is received after 7 days, the CA must
revoke the certificate except if the CA has documented proof (e.g., OCSP
logs) that this will cause significant impact to the general public. 

 

A CA revoking a Certificate because the Certificate was associated with
signed Suspect Code or other fraudulent or illegal conduct SHOULD provide
all relevant information and risk indicators to other CAs or industry
groups.  The CA SHOULD indicate whether its investigation found that the
Suspect Code was a false positive or an inadvertent signing.


13.1.6              Reasons for Revoking a Subordinate CA Certificate


As specified in BR Section 4.9.1.2. 


13.1.7              Certificate Revocation Date


When revoking a Certificate, the CA SHOULD work with the Subscriber to
estimate a date of when the revocation should occur in order to mitigate the
impact of revocation on validly signed Code.  For key compromise events,
this date SHOULD be the earliest date of suspected compromise.  


13.2                      Certificate Status Checking


13.2.1   Mechanisms

In addition to the requirements specified in BR Section 4.9.7 through
4.9.10, CAs MUST provide up-to-date revocation status information.  CAs MUST
provide OCSP responses for Code Signing Certificates and Timestamp
Certificates for the time period specified in their CPS, which MUST be at
least 10 years after the expiration of the certificate.  If a CA issues
CRLs, the serial number of a revoked certificate MUST remain on the CRL for
at least 10 years after the expiration of the certificate.  Application
Software Suppliers MAY require the CA to support a longer life-time in its
contract with the CA.  If the CA wishes to stop supporting validation of
Code Signing Certificates or Timestamp Certificates prior to the date
specified in its Certificate Policy/Certificate Practice Statement, the CA
MUST give 90 days' prior notice to all Application Software Suppliers
relying on the root certificate and permit the Application Software
Suppliers sufficient time to take appropriate action as determined by the
Application Software Supplier.

If a Code Signing Certificate contains the Lifetime Signing OID, the
Signature becomes invalid when the Code Signing Certificate expires, even if
the Signature is timestamped. Because the Lifetime Signing OID is intended
to be used with test purposes only, a CA MAY cease maintaining revocation
information for a Code Signing Certificate with the Lifetime Signing OID
after the Code Signing Certificate expires.

Whenever practical, Platforms should check the revocation status of the
Certificates that they rely upon.  However, this is not always practical,
such as when signed Code is loaded earlier in the boot sequence than the
network communication stack. 

In the timestamp model, the Platform should check the revocation status at
the time the time-stamp was applied.  In addition to checking revocation
status, where practical, Platforms should consult blacklists for Suspect
Code.  

A Certificate MAY have a one-to-one relationship or one-to-many relationship
with the signed Code.  Regardless, revocation of a Certificate may
invalidate the signatures on all those signed Objects, some of which could
be perfectly sound.  Because of this, the CA MAY specify a revocation date
in a CRL or OCSP response to time-bind the set of software affected by the
revocation, and software should continue to treat objects containing a
time-stamp dated before the revocation date as valid.

Because some Application Software Suppliers utilize non-standard revocation
mechanisms, CAs MUST, if requested by the Application Software Supplier and
using a method of communication specified by the Application Software
Vendor, notify the Application Software Supplier whenever the CA revokes a
Code Signing Certificate because (i) the CA mis-issued the Certificate, (ii)
the Certificate was used to sign Suspect Code, or (iii) there is a suspected
or actual compromise of the Applicant's or CA's Private Key.

13.2.2   Repository

The CA SHALL maintain an online 24x7 Repository that application software
can use to automatically check the current status of  Code Signing and
Timestamp Certificates issued by the CA.

For the status of Code Signing Certificates:

1. If the CA publishes a CRL, then the CA SHALL update and reissue CRLs at
least once every seven days, and the value of the nextUpdate field MUST NOT
be more than ten days beyond the value of the thisUpdate field; and

2. The CA SHALL update information provided via an Online Certificate Status
Protocol at least every four days. OCSP responses from this service MUST
have a maximum expiration time of ten days.

For the status of Timestamp Certificates:

1. The CA SHALL update and reissue CRLs at least (i) once every twelve
months and (ii) within 24 hours after revoking a Timestamp Certificate, and
the value of the nextUpdate field MUST NOT be more than twelve months beyond
the value of the thisUpdate field; and

2. The CA SHALL update information provided via an Online Certificate Status
Protocol at least (i) every twelve months and (ii) within 24 hours after
revoking a Subordinate CA Certificate.

The CA SHALL support an OCSP capability using the GET method for
Certificates issued in accordance with these Requirements.


14.                   Employees and Third Parties


14.1                      Trustworthiness and Competence


As specified in BR Section 5.3.


14.2                      Delegation of Functions to Registration
Authorities and Subcontractors


14.2.1              General


Except as stated in Section 14.2.2 of this document, the CA MAY delegate the
performance of all, or any part, of these Requirements to a Delegated Third
Party, provided that the process as a whole fulfills all of the requirements
of this document.   

Before the CA authorizes a Delegated Third Party to perform a delegated
function, the CA MUST contractually require the Delegated Third Party to: 

1.	Meet the qualification requirements of BR Section 5.3 when
applicable to the delegated function,
2.	Retain documentation in accordance with BR Section 5.4.1, 
3.	Abide by the other provisions of these Requirements that are
applicable to the delegated function, and
4.	Comply with (a) the CA's Certificate Policy/Certification Practice
Statement or (b) the Delegated Third Party's practice statement that the CA
has verified complies with these Requirements.

The CA MUST verify that the Signing Service and any other Delegated Third
Party's personnel involved in the issuance of a Certificate meet the
training and skills requirements of Section 14 of this document and the
document retention and event logging requirements of Section 15 of this
document.

If a Delegated Third Party fulfills any of the CA's obligations under
Section 11.5 (High Risk Requests) of this document, the CA MUST verify that
the process used by the Delegated Third Party to identify and further verify
High Risk Certificate Requests provides at least the same level of assurance
as the CA's own processes.


14.2.2              Compliance Obligation


In all cases, the CA MUST contractually obligate each Delegated Third Party
to comply with all applicable requirements in these Requirements and to
perform them as required of the CA itself. The CA MUST enforce these
obligations and internally audit each Delegated Third Party's compliance
with these Requirements on an annual basis. 


14.2.3              Allocation of Liability


As specified in Section BR Sections 9.8 and 9.9.


15.                   Data Records


The Timestamp Authority MUST log the following information:

1.      All data related to the creation of a timestamp, including all
requests for a time-stamp, the connecting IP, and results of the timestamp, 

2.      Physical or remote access to a timestamp server, including the time
of the access and the identity of the individual accessing the server, 

3.      History of the timestamp server configuration, 

4.      Any attempt to delete or modify timestamp logs, 

5.      Security events, including:

a. Successful and unsuccessful PKI system access attempts;

b. PKI and security system actions performed;

c. Security profile changes;

d. System crashes, hardware failures, and other anomalies;

e. Firewall and router activities; and

f. Entries to and exits from the CA facility

1.	Revocation of a timestamp certificate, 
2.	Major changes to the timestamp server's time,
3.	System startup and shutdown, and 
4.	Equipment failures or malfunctions. 

Data MUST be retained as specified in BR Section 5.4.3. except for item
number 1 above which MUST be retained for a minimum of 5 days.


16.                   Data Security and Private Key Protection


The requirements in BR Sections 6.1 and 6.2 apply equally to Code Signing
Certificates.  In addition:


16.1                      Timestamp Authority Key Protection 


1.      Each CA MUST operate an RFC-3161-compliant Timestamp Authority that
is available for use by customers of its Code Signing Certificates.  CAs
MUST recommend to Subscribers that they use the CA's Timestamping Authority
to time-stamp signed code.

2.      A Timestamp Authority MUST protect its signing key using a process
that is at least to FIPS 140-2 Level 3, Common Criteria EAL 4+ (ALC_FLR.2),
or higher.  The CA MUST protect its signing operations in accordance with
the CA/Browser Forum's Network Security Guidelines.  Any changes to its
signing process MUST be an auditable event. 

3.      The Timestamp Authority MUST ensure that clock synchronization is
maintained when a leap second occurs.  A Timestamp Authority MUST
synchronize its timestamp server at least every 24 hours with a UTC(k) time
source.  The timestamp server MUST automatically detect and report on clock
drifts or jumps out of synchronization with UTC.  Clock adjustments of one
second or greater MUST be auditable events.


16.2                      Signing Service Requirements


The Signing Service MUST ensure that a Subscriber's private key is
generated, stored, and used in a secure environment that has controls to
prevent theft or misuse.  A Signing Service MUST enforce multi-factor
authentication to access and authorize Code Signing and obtain a
representation from the Subscriber that they will securely store the tokens
required for multi-factor access.  A system used to host a Signing Service
MUST NOT be used for web browsing.  The Signing Service MUST run a regularly
updated antivirus solution to scan the service for possible virus infection.
The Signing Service MUST comply with the Network Security Guidelines as a
"Delegated Third Party".


16.3                      Subscriber Private Key Protection


The CA MUST obtain a representation from the Subscriber that the Subscriber
will use one of the following options to generate and protect their Code
Signing Certificate private keys: 

1.      A Trusted Platform Module (TPM) that generates and secures a key
pair and that can document the Subscriber's private key protection through a
TPM key attestation.  

2.      A hardware crypto module with a unit design form factor certified as
conforming to at least FIPS 140 Level 2, Common Criteria EAL 4+, or
equivalent.  

3.      Another type of hardware storage token with a unit design form
factor of SD Card or USB token (not necessarily certified as conformant with
FIPS 140 Level 2 or Common Criteria EAL 4+). The Subscriber MUST also
warrant that it will keep the token physically separate from the device that
hosts the code signing function until a signing session is begun.  

A CA MUST recommend that the Subscriber protect Private Keys using the
method described in Section 16.3(1) or 16.3(2) over the method described in
Section 16.3(3) and obligate the Subscriber to protect Private Keys in
accordance with 10.3.2(2).


17.                   Audit


17.1                      Eligible Audit Schemes


The CA MUST undergo a conformity assessment audit for compliance with these
Requirements performed in accordance with one of the following schemes: 

1. WebTrust for Certification Authorities v2.0; 

2. A national scheme that audits conformance to ETSI TS 102 042; 

 Whichever scheme is chosen, it MUST incorporate periodic monitoring and/or
accountability procedures to ensure that its audits continue to be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of the scheme. 

The audit MUST be conducted by a Qualified Auditor, as specified in BR
Section 8.2.


17.2                      Audit Period


As specified in BR Section 8.1.


17.3                      Audit Report


As specified in BR Section 8.6.


17.4                      Pre-Issuance Readiness Audit


If the CA has a currently valid Audit Report indicating compliance with an
audit scheme listed in Section 17.1, then no pre-issuance readiness
assessment is necessary.

If the CA does not have a currently valid Audit Report indicating compliance
with one of the audit schemes listed in Section 17.1, then, before issuing
Publicly-Trusted Certificates, the CA MUST successfully complete a
point-in-time readiness assessment performed in accordance with applicable
standards under one of the audit schemes listed in Section 17.1.  The
point-in-time readiness assessment MUST be completed no earlier than twelve
(12) months prior to issuing Publicly-Trusted Certificates and MUST be
followed by a complete audit under such scheme within ninety (90) days of
issuing the first Publicly-Trusted Certificate.


17.5                      Audit of Delegated Functions


Audits MUST be conducted for all obligations under these Guidelines,
including timestamping and signing services, regardless of whether they are
performed directly by the CA or by a Delegated Third Party.  Functions
performed by a Delegated Third Party MUST be included in the CA's audit or
the CA MUST obtain an audit report from the Delegated Third Party. If the
opinion is that the Delegated Third Party does not comply, then the CA MUST
not allow the Delegated Third Party to continue performing delegated
functions.

The audit period for the Delegated Third Party MUST NOT exceed one year
(ideally aligned with the CA's audit).


17.6                      Auditor Qualifications


As specified in BR Section 8.2.


17.7                      Key Generation Ceremony


As specified in BR Section 6.1.1.1.

 

 


18.                   Liability and Indemnification


As specified in BR Section 9.




Appendix A


Minimum Cryptographic Algorithm and Key Size Requirements

Certificates and Timestamp tokens issued after the effective date of these
guidelines MUST meet the following requirements for algorithm type and key
size.

(1)  Code Signing Root, Subordinate CA, and Code Signing Certificates

The table below defines cryptographic requirements for Code Signing
Certificates issued within the specified time and their corresponding Root
Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates. 

Note: The digest algorithm used to issue the Root Certificate does not have
security relevance and need not conform to the requirements in the table
below.


 

Code Signing Certificates issued prior to January 1, 2021and their
corresponding Root Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates

Code Signing Certificates issued on or after January 1, 2021 and their
corresponding Root Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates


Digest algorithm

SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512 (SHA-1 for legacy implementations only)*

SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512


Minimum RSA modulus size (bits)

2048

3072


ECC  curve

NIST P-256, P-384, or P-521

NIST P-256, P-384, or P-521


Minimum DSA modulus and divisor size (bits) 

L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256

L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256

*CAs can issue SHA-1 certificates to legacy platforms that do not support
SHA-2 only for code signing and timestamping certificates.

(2) Timestamp Root, Subordinate CA, and Timestamp Certificates

The table below defines cryptographic requirements for Timestamp
Certificates issued within the specified time and their corresponding Root
Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates. 

Note: The digest algorithm used to issue the Root Certificate does not have
security relevance and need not conform to the requirements in the table
below.


 

Timestamp Certificates issued prior to January 1, 2021 and their
corresponding Root Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates

Timestamp Certificates issued on or after January 1, 2021 and their
corresponding Root Certificates and Subordinate CA Certificates


Digest algorithm

SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512 (SHA-1 for legacy implementations only)*

SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512


Minimum RSA modulus size (bits)

2048

3072


ECC  curve

NIST P-256, P-384, or P-521

NIST P-256, P-384, or P-521


Minimum DSA modulus and divisor size (bits) 

L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256

L= 2048, N= 224 or L= 2048, N= 256

*CAs can issue SHA-1 certificates to legacy platforms that do not support
SHA-2 only for code signing and timestamping certificates.

 

(3) Timestamp Tokens

The digest algorithms used to sign Timestamp tokens must match the digest
algorithm used to sign the Timestamp Certificate.  


 

Generated prior to January 1, 2021

Generated on or after January 1, 2021


Digest algorithm

SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512 (SHA-1 for legacy implementations only)*

SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512

*CAs can issue SHA-1 certificates to legacy platforms that do not support
SHA-2 only for code signing and timestamping certificates.

 


 




Appendix B


Certificate Extensions (Normative)

This appendix specifies the requirements for extensions in Certificates
issued after the date of these guidelines (including Subordinate CA
certificates)

(1) Root CA Certificates

As specified in Appendix A of the Baseline Requirements.

(2) Certificates for Subordinate CAs issuing Code Signing Certificates

A.	certificatePolicies

This extension MUST be present and SHOULD NOT be marked critical.

certificatePolicies:policyIdentifier (Required)

If the certificate is issued to a Subordinate CA that is not an Affiliate of
the entity that controls the Root CA, then the set of policy identifiers
MUST include a Policy Identifier, defined by the Subordinate CA, which
indicates a Certificate Policy asserting the Subordinate CA's adherence to
and compliance with these Requirements.  

The following fields MUST be present if the Subordinate CA is not an
Affiliate of the entity that controls the Root CA.

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId

*                   id-qt 1 [RFC 5280]

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:qualifier:cPSuri

*                   HTTP URL for the Root CA's Certification Practice
Statement

B.	cRLDistributionPoint

This extension MUST be present, MUST NOT be marked critical, and MUST
contain the HTTP URL of the CA's CRL service.

C.	authorityInformationAccess

This extension MUST be present and MUST NOT be marked critical.  The
extension MUST contain the HTTP URL of the CA's OCSP responder (accessMethod
= 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.1), and/or the HTTP URL for the Root CA's certificate
(accessMethod = 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.2).

D.	basicConstraints

This extension MUST appear as a critical extension in all CA certificates
that contain Public Keys used to validate digital signatures on
certificates.  The cA field MUST be set true.  The pathLenConstraint field
MAY be present.

E.	keyUsage

This extension MUST be present and MUST be marked critical.  Bit positions
for keyCertSign and cRLSign MUST be set.  If the Subordinate CA Private Key
is used for signing OCSP responses, then the digitalSignature bit MUST be
set.

F.	extkeyUsage  (EKU)

The id-kp-codeSigning [RFC5280] value MUST be present.   

The following EKUs MAY be present:  documentSigning and emailProtection.

The value anyExtendedKeyUsage (2.5.29.37.0) or serverAuth
(1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1) MUST NOT be present.   

Other values SHOULD NOT be present.  If any other value is present, the CA
MUST have a business agreement with a Platform vendor requiring that EKU in
order to issue a Platform-specific code signing certificate with that EKU.

This extension SHOULD be marked non-critical. 

 The CA MUST set all other fields and extensions in accordance to RFC 5280.

(3) Code Signing Certificates

A.	certificatePolicies

This extension MUST be present and SHOULD NOT be marked critical.

certificatePolicies:policyIdentifier (Required)

*                   A Policy Identifier, defined by the Issuer, that
indicates a Certificate Policy asserting the Issuer's adherence to and
compliance with these Requirements.

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId (Recommended)

*                   id-qt 1 [RFC 5280]

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:qualifier:cPSuri (Optional)

*                   HTTP URL for the Subordinate CA's Certification Practice
Statement

B.	cRLDistributionPoint

This extension MAY be present.  If present, it MUST NOT be marked critical,
and it MUST contain the HTTP URL of the CA's CRL service.  

C.	authorityInformationAccess

This extension MUST be present and MUST NOT be marked critical.  The
extension MUST contain the HTTP URL of the CA's OCSP responder (accessMethod
= 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.1) and the HTTP URL for the Root CA's certificate
(accessMethod = 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.2). 

D.	basicConstraints (optional)

If present, the cA field MUST be set false. 

E.	keyUsage (required)

This extension MUST be present and MUST be marked critical. The bit
positions for digitalSignature MUST be set.  Bit positions for keyCertSign
and cRLSign MUST NOT be set. All other bit positions SHOULD NOT be set.

F.	extKeyUsage (EKU) (required)

The value id-kp-codeSigning [RFC5280] MUST be present.  

The following EKUs MAY be present:  documentSigning, lifetimeSigning, and
emailProtection.

The value anyExtendedKeyUsage (2.5.29.37.0) or serverAuth
(1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1) MUST NOT be present.   

Other values SHOULD NOT be present.  If any other value is present, the CA
MUST have a business agreement with a Platform vendor requiring that EKU in
order to issue a Platform-specific code signing certificate with that EKU.

The CA MUST set all other fields and extensions in accordance to RFC 5280.

(4) Certificates for Subordinate CAs issuing Timestamp Certificates

A.	certificatePolicies

This extension MUST be present and SHOULD NOT be marked critical.

certificatePolicies:policyIdentifier (Required)

If the certificate is issued to a Subordinate CA that is not an Affiliate of
the entity that controls the Root CA, then the set of policy identifiers
MUST include a Policy Identifier, defined by the Subordinate CA, which
indicates a Certificate Policy asserting the Subordinate CA's adherence to
and compliance with these Requirements.  

The following fields MUST be present if the Subordinate CA is not an
Affiliate of the entity that controls the Root CA.

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId

*                   id-qt 1 [RFC 5280]

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:qualifier:cPSuri

*                   HTTP URL for the Root CA's Certification Practice
Statement

B.	cRLDistributionPoint

This extension MUST be present, MUST NOT be marked critical, and MUST
contain the HTTP URL of the CA's CRL service.

C.	authorityInformationAccess

This extension MUST be present and MUST NOT be marked critical.  The
extension MUST contain the HTTP URL of the CA's OCSP responder (accessMethod
= 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.1), and/or the HTTP URL for the Root CA's certificate
(accessMethod = 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.2).

D.	basicConstraints

This extension MUST appear as a critical extension in all CA certificates
that contain Public Keys used to validate digital signatures on
certificates.  The cA field MUST be set true.  The pathLenConstraint field
MAY be present.

E.	keyUsage

This extension MUST be present and MUST be marked critical.  Bit positions
for keyCertSign and cRLSign MUST be set.  If the Subordinate CA Private Key
is used for signing OCSP responses, then the digitalSignature bit MUST be
set.

F.	extkeyUsage  (EKU)

The id-kp-timeStamping [RFC5280] value MUST be present.   

The value anyExtendedKeyUsage (2.5.29.37.0) MUST NOT be present.   

Other values SHOULD NOT be present.  If any other value is present, the CA
MUST have a business agreement with a Platform vendor requiring that EKU in
order to issue a Platform-specific code signing certificate with that EKU.

This extension SHOULD be marked non-critical. 

 The CA MUST set all other fields and extensions in accordance to RFC 5280.

(5) Timestamp Certificates

A.	certificatePolicies

This extension MUST be present and SHOULD NOT be marked critical.

certificatePolicies:policyIdentifier (Required)

*                   A Policy Identifier, defined by the Issuer, that
indicates a Certificate Policy asserting the Issuer's adherence to and
compliance with these Requirements.

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:policyQualifierId (Recommended)

*                   id-qt 1 [RFC 5280]

certificatePolicies:policyQualifiers:qualifier:cPSuri (Optional)

*                   HTTP URL for the Subordinate CA's Certification Practice
Statement

B.	cRLDistributionPoint

This extension MAY be present.  If present, it MUST NOT be marked critical,
and it MUST contain the HTTP URL of the CA's CRL service.  

C.	authorityInformationAccess

This extension MUST be present and MUST NOT be marked critical.  The
extension MUST contain the HTTP URL of the CA's OCSP responder (accessMethod
= 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.1) and the HTTP URL for the Root CA's certificate
(accessMethod = 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.2). 

D.	basicConstraints (optional)

If present, the cA field MUST be set false. 

E.	keyUsage (required)

This extension MUST be present and MUST be marked critical. The bit
positions for digitalSignature MUST be set.  Bit positions for keyCertSign
and cRLSign MUST NOT be set. All other bit positions SHOULD NOT be set.

F.	extKeyUsage (EKU) (required)

The value id-kp-timeStamping [RFC5280] MUST be present and MUST be marked
critical.  

The value anyExtendedKeyUsage (2.5.29.37.0) MUST NOT be present.   

Other values SHOULD NOT be present.  If any other value is present, the CA
MUST have a business agreement with a Platform vendor requiring that EKU in
order to issue a Platform-specific code signing certificate with that EKU.

The CA MUST set all other fields and extensions in accordance to RFC 5280.

 




Appendix C


User Agent Verification (Normative)

As specified in Appendix C of the Baseline Requirements.


 


 




Appendix D


HIGH RISK REGIONS OF CONCERN 

The geographic locations listed below have more than 5% of the Code Signing
Certificates for that location associated with signed Suspect Code when
compared to the number of all Code Signing Certificates for that area.
Applications originating or associated from one of these HRRCs are
considered high risk and require additional verification as specified under
Section 11.7 of this document:

NONE

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20190606/11089662/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Cscwg-public mailing list