[Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Re: Re FIPS tokens supporting RSA 3072

[Adriano Santoni]

Let me clarify that I am not trying to delay the key size effective 
date. I just wanted to bring to the WG's attention that the said 
requirement implies sourcing devices from a single supplier, which is 
bad thing competition-wise.

I'd love to hear from the other folks here, what do they think. If it's 
a "no problem", so much the better (or worse).

If Tomas' interpretation of CSBR §16.3 (item 2) is shared by most WG 
members (or at least by those who have an opinion on it), the problem 
lessens a bit, although it certainly does not go away.

Thanks,

Adriano


Il 17/03/2021 21:42, Ian McMillan ha scritto:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> This key size effective date has already been delayed by 6 months. I 
> am not keen on further delaying the requirement of 3072 keys for RSA 
> due to a lack of tokens that support the requirement in the CSBRs. As 
> Bruce calls out, there are other means to which subscribers can secure 
> their private keys to meet the requirements outside of a token 
> provided by a CA. If this change in key size is what pushes 
> subscribers to use HSMs (on-prem or cloud based services) or signing 
> services, it may serve as the call to action for token suppliers on a 
> requirement they have frankly seemed to have overlooked for some time 
> now.
>
> I’ll be interested to discuss how much additional time the group feels 
> is needed here, and how best we can help accelerate the transition.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian
>
> *From:* Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of 
> *Adriano Santoni via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:31 AM
> *To:* Bruce Morton <Bruce.Morton at entrust.com>
> *Cc:* cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Re: Re FIPS tokens supporting 
> RSA 3072
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I certainly agree that - if the said token is the only device 
> available on the market meeting the said requirement, as it seems to 
> be the case -- we should promptly revise the effective date (June 1st, 
> just three months from now) of the transition to 3072 bits being 
> mandatory for RSA keys.
>
> If nothing else, because it would be a really bad thing to impose a 
> requirement that involves sourcing devices from a single possible 
> supplier, thereby favouring a monopoly. I hope everyone agrees on this 
> principle.
>
> Adriano
>
> Il 17/03/2021 16:45, Bruce Morton ha scritto:
>
>     Hi Adriano,
>
>     We should discuss this issue at the next meeting. I do think that
>     there are options to using the SafeNet token, but that might
>     include subscriber hosted HSM, public-cloud HSM or Signing Service
>     HSM.
>
>     I think we all understand that the options might be hard to
>     implement before 1 June 2021 deadline.
>
>     Bruce.
>
>     *From:* Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org>
>     <mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Adriano
>     Santoni via Cscwg-public
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:18 AM
>     *To:* cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org>
>     *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Cscwg-public] Re FIPS tokens supporting
>     RSA 3072
>
>     WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
>     DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and
>     know the content is safe.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     I should have written "the only CC token", as the FIPS version of
>     the said token does not support RSA > 2048 bit....
>
>     But my question remains (after replacing "FIPS" with "CC").
>
>     Adriano
>
>     Il 17/03/2021 16:08, Adriano Santoni via Cscwg-public ha scritto:
>
>         I already posted this question yesterday, but apparently it
>         did not get through.
>
>         I was asking: is the SafeNet eToken 5110 CC the only FIPS
>         token supporting RSA 3072 available on the market?
>
>         I am investigating this matter myself, and although I am not
>         finished it seems there aren't many... possibly just one.
>
>         If so, it would be a rather unfortunate situation
>         competition-wise.
>
>         Adriano
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Cscwg-public mailing list
>
>         Cscwg-public at cabforum.org  <mailto:Cscwg-public at cabforum.org>
>
>         https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public  <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcscwg-public&data=04%7C01%7Cianmcm%40microsoft.com%7Cd99faf2ab770497a6a6908d8e9620f0b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637515954677826280%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=t9aEK4G0KBJ%2B2bZw6o7IRjLnLMACUJuSIegwRSV0ecc%3D&reserved=0>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210319/022d0b02/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4557 bytes
Desc: Firma crittografica S/MIME
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210319/022d0b02/attachment.p7s>