[Cscwg-public] CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot
Bruce.Morton at entrust.com
Mon Sep 20 18:31:29 UTC 2021
Is there a reason that we cannot allow CAs to continue to use Revocation date and Invalidity date as per RFC 5280?
My assumption is that we were going to allow the Revocation date to be a date earlier than the time the certificate was revoked. I am not seeing how this change would impact the Invalidity date.
From: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Corey Bonnell via Cscwg-public
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:52 PM
To: cscwg-public at cabforum.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Cscwg-public] CRL Revocation Date Clarification Pre-Ballot
WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
As discussed last week, it would be valuable to ensure that there is clarity regarding how revocation/invalidity dates are encoded in CRLs so that relying party software can make the correct trust decisions regarding compromised code. Attached is a small change to 13.2.1 to reflect that the revocationDate CRL entry field shall be used to denote when a certificate is invalid. The proposed language allows for the Invalidity Date CRL entry extension to continue to appear, but the time encoded in it must be the same as the revocationDate for the entry. I don't believe this causes issues with Windows CRL processing, please let me know if it does and I'll remove the provision.
For reference, here are the two proposed paragraphs to be added to 13.2.1:
If a Code Signing Certificate is revoked, and the CA later becomes aware of a more appropriate revocation date, then the CA MAY use that revocation date in subsequent CRL entries and OCSP responses for that Code Signing Certificate.
Effective 2022-02-01, if the CA includes the Invalidity Date CRL entry extension in a CRL entry for a Code Signing Certificate, then the time encoded in the Invalidity Date CRL extension SHALL be equal to the time encoded in the revocationDate field of the CRL entry.
Given that the revocation date is potentially security sensitive, I think it's worthwhile to get this clarified prior to the RFC 3647/Pandoc effort. In addition to comments/questions on the proposed language, we're looking for two endorsers.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cscwg-public