[Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Re: DISCUSS/ENDORSE: Ballot CSC-11: Update to log data retention requirements
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Thu Sep 9 10:16:16 UTC 2021
On 8/9/2021 11:01 μ.μ., Ian McMillan wrote:
>
> Thanks Seb and Dimitris!
>
> I am totally with Dimitris on this topic and I like the addition
> “note” Dimitris and Clint are putting into the BRs (so much so I am
> incorporating it). Please see that attached revise of the redline doc.
>
Hi Ian,
Procedure-wise, the red-line and the "Draft Guideline" that is put for a
ballot, must be based on the at-the-time effective Final Guideline,
which is currently 2.3. The Revisions table should also not be part of
the ballot because we are running ballots in parallel and might stumble
on minor deviations with effective dates, unless we have reasons to
update tables with version numbers. This is explicitly called out in the
Bylaws <https://github.com/cabforum/forum/blob/main/Bylaws.md>section
2.4 (8).
For example, CSC-9 has ended the IPR review period but the
Chair/Vice-Chair must announce the end of the IPR Review Period, making
sure that no Exclusion Notices have been filed, and publish the final
guideline based on that ballot. The effective date would be the day the
final guideline is published (not 2021-09-08). The same applies to
CSC-10. For those reasons, and considering the fact that the IPR Review
for CSC-10 ends very soon (2021-09-12), I would suggest that you wait a
couple of days and base your redline on the Final Guideline that will be
published by Bruce based on CSC-10 to start the discussion period.
Regarding your comment on 15.1 about Signing Services, I agree that it
seems out of place and would propose to remote it so that the text reads
"CAs and each Delegated Third Party SHALL..."
Similarly for the "Note" in section 15.3, I suggest replacing "Signing
Service" with "Delegated Third Parties".
Happy to endorse with the changes above, if there are no objections by
other Members.
Best regards,
Dimitris.
> Thanks,
>
> Ian
>
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:52 AM
> *To:* Sebastian Schulz <sebastian.schulz at globalsign.com>;
> cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Re: DISCUSS/ENDORSE: Ballot
> CSC-11: Update to log data retention requirements
>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> I'd like to share with the CSCWG a proposal I wrote after some
> collaboration with Clint Wilson from Apple. You may find the proposed
> changes to the BRs in
> https://github.com/dzacharo/servercert/pull/2/files
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fdzacharo%2Fservercert%2Fpull%2F2%2Ffiles&data=04%7C01%7Cianmcm%40microsoft.com%7Cc945000f631842bfa31408d96dffaa93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637661767719961422%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=RNOddurbyIhItjFVDityJT%2FyjHhK%2F%2F%2BI5YSApXI5oHA%3D&reserved=0>.
>
> The fact that the retention period has a lower limit, nothing prevents
> a CA from keeping logs/archives for longer periods in order to
> investigate past security incidents. This is highlighted in a NOTE in
> the proposal above. Similarly the NetSec SCWG subcommittee is working
> on a draft in
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SCyrt8la1slPJhvnWUW6ROlqIV3yaDwb3LKZ5qjdiH4
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1SCyrt8la1slPJhvnWUW6ROlqIV3yaDwb3LKZ5qjdiH4&data=04%7C01%7Cianmcm%40microsoft.com%7Cc945000f631842bfa31408d96dffaa93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637661767719971379%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=Kfa9Oix82YtnVRSO8P75LlrEGScTedAzC%2FJvai3PMzg%3D&reserved=0>.
>
> For the CA Certificates' retention period, which is proposed to be 2
> years after the expiration/revocation/key deletion of the CA, IMHO the
> same principle applies. The CA must determine if it needs to keep logs
> for more time in order to perform proper retrospection related to a
> security incident AFTER a CA has been decommissioned.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
> On 2/9/2021 1:35 μ.μ., Sebastian Schulz via Cscwg-public wrote:
>
> Hey All, Hey Ian
>
> What seems a little odd to me is that the requirements for the
> duration of log retention are the same for CA certificates as for
> subscriber certificates, given their wildly different original
> validity periods. I know the TLS BR handle it like that as well
> but come to think of it….isn’t the purpose of log retention to be
> able to identify possible errors in operation of a CA from the
> aftermath? Since CA certificate lifecycle operations are carried
> out at much lower frequency than those for subscriber
> certificates, I would have assumed that more logged time is needed
> to identify possible systemic errors (in contrast, 2 years
> retention for subscriber certificates with max 3 year validity
> almost seems long)
>
> Just a thought that came to mind, maybe I just missed discussion
> around it. Or another discussion needs to be had, but not for this
> ballot then. When it comes to adding TS requirements and detaching
> it from TLS BR - looks good to me 😊
>
> Best,
>
> Seb
>
> *Sebastian Schulz*
> /Product Manager Client Certificates/
>
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org>
> <mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Ian
> McMillan via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* 01 September 2021 17:00
> *To:* Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com>
> <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org>; dzacharo at harica.gr
> <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>; Bruce.Morton at entrust.com
> <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrust.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Re: DISCUSS/ENDORSE:
> Ballot CSC-11: Update to log data retention requirements
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please review the attached updated redline with the removal of all
> references to the SSL/TLS BRs for section 15 on data records.
>
> I’d like to note that Signing Services are included in the data
> records requirements but seem really out of place as they are
> responsible for subscriber key generation and protection as it is
> described in section 16.2, and not the management or creation of
> CA certificates. I could easily see us removing Sign Services from
> this section or authoring a new set of requirements for signing
> services as part of the refinement of the CSBRs for signing services.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian
>
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org>
> <mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Ian
> McMillan via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:27 AM
> *To:* dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>;
> Bruce.Morton at entrust.com <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrust.com>;
> cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] [EXTERNAL] Re: DISCUSS/ENDORSE:
> Ballot CSC-11: Update to log data retention requirements
>
> Hi Bruce and Dimitris,
>
> I like this idea and I’ll work on this update to share with the
> group before next week’s meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian
>
> Get Outlook for iOS
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef&data=04%7C01%7Cianmcm%40microsoft.com%7Cc945000f631842bfa31408d96dffaa93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637661767719981339%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=sdIfRYm9riGo3EinAEjzs2YCkhZsbjcI%2FErkRxgRFv4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr
> <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:16:03 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> <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: [Cscwg-public] DISCUSS/ENDORSE: Ballot
> CSC-11: Update to log data retention requirements
>
> On 26/8/2021 9:00 μ.μ., Bruce Morton via Cscwg-public wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> I am wondering if we could change the text, so we do not
> reference the SSL BRs. I’m saying this because:
>
> 1. CSBRs refer to SSL BR version 1.6.9, which was updated per
> SC27
> 2. CSBR section 15.2 would be easier to read
> 3. CSBR section 15.2 would be independent of the SSL BRs,
> which goes in the direction of our goal
>
> Thanks, Bruce.
>
>
> I agree with Bruce. We should try to incorporate text from the TLS
> BRs that makes sense for the CS BRs as much as we can and avoid
> references that have the risk of becoming broken or amended by the
> SCWG.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
>
> *From:* Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org>
> <mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Ian
> McMillan via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:29 PM
> *To:* cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Cscwg-public] DISCUSS/ENDORSE: Ballot
> CSC-11: Update to log data retention requirements
>
> 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 Folks,
>
> I am looking for feedback and at least two endorsements on
> this new ballot I am proposing. Please share your feedback and
> if you are willing to endorse this ballot.
>
> Ballot CSC-11: Update to log data retention requirements
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fwiki.cabforum.org%2Fcscwg%2Fcsc_11_-_update_to_log_data_retention_requirements__%3B!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!OxtP9iVwcvkR2NB3D6_-cStNUlZ0jiRsvQI7kzZGF3vX8NFDtimB6Te0-iBFuXDSLg0%24&data=04%7C01%7Cianmcm%40microsoft.com%7Cc945000f631842bfa31408d96dffaa93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637661767719991296%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=2apKicY6AAJrNRYAmvy3ZpdreDDdft%2F77FnTR5YyQf4%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Purpose of this ballot:
>
> Update the log data and retention of log data requirements in
> the Baseline Requirement for the Issuance and Management of
> Publicly-Trusted Code Signing Certificates v2.5.
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Ian McMillan of
> Microsoft, and I am looking for endorsements from two other
> members of the CSCWG.
>
> — MOTION BEGINS —
>
> This ballot updates the “Baseline Requirements for the
> Issuance and Management of Publicly‐Trusted Code Signing
> Certificates“ version 2.5 according to the attached redline
> which including
>
> Update section 15 “Data Records” to include sub-section 15.1
> “Timestamp Authority Data Records”
>
> Update section 15.1 to clarify 4(f) for security event logging
> on Timestamp Authority servers
>
> Update section 15.1 on 4(d) for security event logging to no
> longer include “hardware failures”
>
> Update section 15 “Data Records” to include sub-section 15.2
> “Data Retention Period for Audit Logs”
>
> Update section 15.2 to no longer reference Baseline
> Requirements section 5.4.3 and defined a specific retention
> period for CA, subscriber certificate, Timestamp Authority,
> and security event data records for at least 2 years
>
> — MOTION ENDS —
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian
>
> /Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are
> confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
> individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this
> message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy,
> distribute or disclose of the information it contains. _Please
> notify Entrust immediately_ and delete the message from your
> system./
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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%7Cc945000f631842bfa31408d96dffaa93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637661767720001248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=Kt%2BHiMNa%2F4GIsPfUfPDnqwGMNRVhr%2BAen4Wh%2FYPyKoI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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%7Cc945000f631842bfa31408d96dffaa93%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C0%7C0%7C637661767720011203%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=0q59np1F%2BztHzC37FNqrfbYCg4rRSyH2RX7aQL8QSFM%3D&reserved=0>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20210909/d2f2f350/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Cscwg-public
mailing list