[Cscwg-public] Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection Requirements (CSC-6 to CSC-13)

Wed Mar 9 12:24:38 UTC 2022

I thought the intent of the ballot was to require the CA to guarantee to the
maximum extent possible that the keys are on a token of suitable security
and to not let the subscriber to “claim” they are following the rules.  That
would mean shipping tokens with the keys on it, using the attestation
certificate, or to only permit key generation using a CA
controlled/specified list of CSPs that will work only with tokens of
suitable security.

What is the intent of the ballot in this area, to let the subscribe claim
they are following the rules, or to force them to follow the rules?

Doug

From: Inigo Barreira <Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 4:22 AM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>; Dean Coclin
<dean.coclin at digicert.com>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org; Bruce Morton
<bruce.morton at entrust.com>; Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>; Ian
McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection Requirements (CSC-6
to CSC-13)

Yes, please. 

It looks like this representation means something like “click here if you
are over 18” or “click here if you agree” because these are also facts not
opinions. 

IMO the message here is that CAs will rely in whatever the subscriber says,
e.g.,  “yes, I´m a good guy and promise that I will keep my keys in a
hardware device 
” rather on making the corresponding tasks to ensure. Is
this the right approach? This is what I understand from Dean´s response
because CAs are not attesting anything just relying in a form signed by the
subscriber in where it may say whatever.

Regards

De: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> 
Enviado el: martes, 8 de marzo de 2022 20:35
Para: Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com>; Inigo Barreira
<Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com>; cscwg-public at cabforum.org; Bruce Morton
<bruce.morton at entrust.com>; Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com>; Ian
McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com>
Asunto: RE: Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection Requirements (CSC-6
to CSC-13)

“representation” is being used here in the legal sense: “a statement of
fact. A representation should be distinguished from a statement of opinion
for many legal purposes, especially in relation to contractual obligations.”

We should perhaps be using plain English instead of legalese.

-Tim

From: Dean Coclin <dean.coclin at digicert.com
<mailto:dean.coclin at digicert.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 1:00 PM
To: Inigo Barreira <Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com
<mailto:Inigo.Barreira at sectigo.com> >; cscwg-public at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> ; Bruce Morton <bruce.morton at entrust.com
<mailto:bruce.morton at entrust.com> >; Doug Beattie
<doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >; Ian
McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> >; Tim
Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Subject: RE: Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection Requirements (CSC-6
to CSC-13)

This means exactly what it says, some representation that the subscriber
makes to honor the condition. This traditionally has been something in
writing that the subscriber signs and submits to the CA. CAs can provide a
form to the subscriber which they attest to.

From: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Inigo Barreira via
Cscwg-public
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 11:03 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> ; Doug
Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >;
Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> >; Tim
Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Subject: Re: [Cscwg-public] Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection
Requirements (CSC-6 to CSC-13)

Hi all,

Reviewing the section 16.3.1 I have a “wording” question. What does it mean
that “The CA MUST obtain a representation from the Subscriber that the
Subscriber will use one of the following options 
”. So, what is a
“representation from the subscriber”?

Regards

De: Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> > En nombre de Bruce Morton via
Cscwg-public
Enviado el: jueves, 3 de marzo de 2022 15:08
Para: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com
<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >; Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com
<mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> >; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
<mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >; cscwg-public at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> 
Asunto: Re: [Cscwg-public] Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection
Requirements (CSC-6 to CSC-13)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.

Doug,

Regarding the 16.2 section, this statement was also struck-out, “After
2021-06-01, the same protection requirements SHALL apply to Non EV Code
Signing Certificates.” So I believe that the requirement already applied to
normal code signing certificates. The edits are just a cleanup.

Bruce.

From: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com
<mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 6:56 AM
To: Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> >; Tim
Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >;
cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> ; Bruce Morton
<Bruce.Morton at entrust.com <mailto:Bruce.Morton at entrust.com> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection
Requirements (CSC-6 to CSC-13)

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 Ian,

Good work on section 16.3, that is much more clear now.  I have 2 more
comments for your consideration.

Comment #1:

In Section 11.7 we say:

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(1) or Section 16.3.1(2). The CA MUST verify the
Applicant’s compliance with Section 16.3.1(1) or Section 16.3.1(2) (i)
through technical means that confirm the Private Keys are protected using
the method described in 16.3.1(1) or 16.3.1(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.

But now there are actually 2 lists in sections 16.3.1(1) or Section
16.3.1(2) with those list numbers.  Do we need to be more specific, or
renumber the second list a-c?  

After 15 November, what is the right remediation for Take Over attack, do we
need to reference one or more of the items in the new list (the list we
might renumber a-c), or is there no remediation now?

There are multiple references to 16.3.1(1) so we’d want to apply the same
logic to all instances.

Comment #2:

Section 16.2 removed the reference to EV in the scope so this applies to
normal Code signing certificates.  Since this does not have a date
associated with it, do we assume that this requirement change for normal
code signing certs is effective immediately?

From: Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 5:56 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
<mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >; cscwg-public at cabforum.org
<mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> ; Doug Beattie
<doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >; Bruce
Morton <bruce.morton at entrust.com <mailto:bruce.morton at entrust.com> >
Subject: RE: Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection Requirements (CSC-6
to CSC-13)

Thank you, Tim, I really like the structure suggestions here. I’ve made
those updates per your suggestion in the attached copy of the redline
document. 

I’ll note your endorsement.

Cheers,

Ian

From: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
<mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 4:57 PM
To: Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> >;
cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> ; Doug Beattie
<doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >; Bruce
Morton <bruce.morton at entrust.com <mailto:bruce.morton at entrust.com> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection
Requirements (CSC-6 to CSC-13)

I would recommend against using parentheticals to express the deprecation
dates, as it makes the sentences more complicated than they need to be.  I’d
just modify the first sentence of each part so the structure is as follows:

   For Non-EV Code Signing Certificates issued prior to November 15, 2022, 

   For EV Code Signing Certificates issued prior to November 15, 2022, 

   Effective November 15, 2022, 

But otherwise, the updates look good and we are willing to endorse CSC-13.

-Tim

From: Ian McMillan <ianmcm at microsoft.com <mailto:ianmcm at microsoft.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 11:31 AM
To: cscwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:cscwg-public at cabforum.org> ; Doug
Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >;
Bruce Morton <bruce.morton at entrust.com <mailto:bruce.morton at entrust.com> >;
Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com
<mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Subject: Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection Requirements (CSC-6 to
CSC-13)

Hi Folks,

Attached you will find an updated redline doc of v2.7 of the CSBRs with the
updates to the subscriber private key protection requirements as outlined
previously in CSC-6. This updated version also includes edits to address
issues Doug Beattie raised during the voting period of CSC-6, so I am
looking for confirmation from Doug on these edits addressing the concerns he
raised. 

Additionally, I’m looking to get endorsements on this ballot under CSC 13 -
Update to Subscriber Private Key Protection Requirements
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.cabf
orum.org%2Fcscwg%2Fcsc_13_-_update_to_subscriber_private_key_protection_requ
irements&data=04%7C01%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7C8c395e17677b473299fe0
8d9fd1f31e3%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637819132704229104%
7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=vVY6kf6AeMZd%2FrkLBqxgdyGhAQRLqyqUXVG2B5vGejM%3D
&reserved=0> , and hope that Bruce and Tim, as previous endorsers can review
the edits and endorse the new ballot. Once we have endorsers I’ll proceed
with the formal ballot process. 

Cheers,

Ian 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20220309/28f1fa6b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 8404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/cscwg-public/attachments/20220309/28f1fa6b/attachment-0001.p7s>