[Cscwg-public] Code Signing Dedicated Root

Wed Apr 14 18:29:49 UTC 2021

Seems like a good idea to me as well, only wondering if we would also want
to make the use of timestamps from CS BR compliant TS certificates required
for valid signatures (I guess this is mostly for MS to look at).

As discussed on the previous call, right now certificates may be used with
some "random" timestamp, not necessarily one of the same hierarchy.

But to start with the assertion of CS BR compliance in TS certs by OID is a
good step forward!

Best,

Seb

Sebastian Schulz
Product Manager Client Certificates

From: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Adriano
Santoni via Cscwg-public
Sent: 14 April 2021 13:57
To: cscwg-public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [Cscwg-public] Code Signing Dedicated Root

Me too 

+1

Il 14/04/2021 00:10, Ian McMillan via Cscwg-public ha scritto:

I am very much supportive of this TS CSBR compliant OID and getting it
added.

Thanks,

Ian

From: Bruce Morton  <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrust.com>
<Bruce.Morton at entrust.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:09 AM
To: Corey Bonnell  <mailto:Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com>
<Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> ; Ian McMillan
<mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> <ianmcm at microsoft.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Code Signing Dedicated Root

Should we first have the OID approved and designated by the CAB Forum?

Bruce.

From: Corey Bonnell <Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com
<mailto:Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:07 AM
To: Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrust.com <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrust.com>
>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> ; Ian
McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Code Signing Dedicated Root

WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the
content is safe.

  _____  

Hi Bruce,

I think this OID looks good; adding a requirement for Timestamp Certificates
to assert this OID should be a simple modification of 9.3.1. I'd be happy to
draft the update if someone can send me the "master copy" of the Word doc
for the current version of the CSBRs.

Thanks,

Corey

From: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Bruce Morton via
Cscwg-public
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> >;
cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> 
Subject: Re: [Cscwg-public] Code Signing Dedicated Root

Another action is that we should create a timestamping certificate policy
OID to add to into the timestamping certificates, where the OID is
referenced from the CSBRs. This would mean that any timestamping certificate
with this OID would meet the requirements of the CSBRs.

If agreed, I suggest:  codesigning-requirements(4) timestamp(2) -
2.23.140.1.4.2  (Timestamp Certificate issued in compliance with the Code
Signing Baseline Requirements)

Bruce.

From: Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:10 PM
To: Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrust.com <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrust.com>
>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Code Signing Dedicated Root

WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the
content is safe.

  _____  

Thank you Bruce! 

This is a great subject to bring forward, and one that has been on my mind
as well (especially after Ryan's presentation at the last F2F). 

Cheers,

Ian 

From: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Bruce Morton via
Cscwg-public
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:44 PM
To: cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Cscwg-public] Code Signing Dedicated Root

Based on the F2F discussion of dedicated PKI hierarchy for TLS and S/MIME, I
think we should also discuss for Code Signing. 

My understanding is that the direction is to have 1) one policy, 2) one (or
more) dedicated hierarchies to support the policy, and 3) one audit.

The good news is the CSWG is ready going in the right direction. We have
created one policy per the CSBRs which cover non-EV/EV code signing
certificates and the associated time-stamping certificates. In addition,
WebTrust has created one audit criteria, which would be able to cover
dedicated roots, subordinates CAs and subscriber certificates

To address a dedicated hierarchy for Code Signing, a simple implementation
would be:

1.       One RSA root (or ECC root) for non-EV codesigning, EV code signing
and time-stamping subordinate CAs, and associated subscriber certificates

2.       The hierarchy is to support the policy associated with only the
CSBRs only and would not by other requirements which would impact the CSBR
policy

3.       Subscriber certificates would have the applicable CA/Browser Forum
certificate policy OID to indicate they were issued iaw the CSBRs

I have thought about other requirements for a Time-stamping dedicated root
and hierarchy. As Time-stamping only is out of scope for the CSWG, I think
we can only address time-stamping as it applies to code signing certificates
per the CSBRs. I also think that a single root to cover both code signing
and time-stamping would make it easier for ubiquity and for end user
validation of signatures.

Regarding testing of roots, the CSBRs refer to SSL BR Appendix C. This is an
incorrect reference as the requirement is now in SSL BR 2.2, which states:

"The CA SHALL host test Web pages that allow Application Software Suppliers
to test their software with Subscriber Certificates that chain up to each
publicly trusted Root Certificate. At a minimum, the CA SHALL host separate
Web pages using Subscriber Certificates that are (i) valid, (ii) revoked,
and (iii) expired." 

With a dedicated hierarchy which only issues code signing and time-stamping
certificates, we cannot issue SSL certificates for Web pages. This only
works now as we use multi-purpose roots. I think we should change this
requirement or allow an option, where the CA must post on a test-site,
signed/time-stamped code where the certificates were issued from Subordinate
CAs which were issued from the Root being tested.

Since we are in the early phase of moving to 4096-bit RSA CAs for code
signing, it would be great if we can agree as to what would be acceptable
for dedicated hierarchy with the goal of getting this right from the
beginning.

Thanks, Bruce.

_______________________________________________
Cscwg-public mailing list
Cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:Cscwg-public at cabforum.org> 
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210414/435154eb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 8432 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210414/435154eb/attachment-0001.p7s>