[Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation based on malware
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Tue Nov 29 09:12:34 UTC 2022
On 28/11/2022 2:50 μ.μ., Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I just pushed a new commit
> (https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/commits/8e7e3b4e57960994edea267f0e753358aad99574)
> based on the discussions and comments I’ve had and received.
>
> The complete ballot “redline” in GitHub is available for review
> onhttps://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/files
>
If the CA confirms that a Subscriber has signed "Suspect Code", how
would the group feel with a proposal to require CAs to *backdate revoke*
the Code Signing Certificate to a date and time that would neutralize
the Suspect Code? If this date and time is unlikely to be determined,
backdate revoke 1'' after the notBefore date and time of the Code
Signing Certificate?
Thanks,
Dimitris.
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Monday, 26 September 2022 11:58
> *To:* Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr>;
> cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation
> based on malware
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you Dimitris. That makes sense. I’ve pushed an update to the
> draft-PR
>
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 September 2022 18:47
> *To:* cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation
> based on malware
>
> 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.
>
> I posted some proposed changes for consistency and accuracy.
>
> * https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10#pullrequestreview-1118760785
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%23pullrequestreview-1118760785&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Cf2e920d96a194144e92408da9fa588be%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637997830583026640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=g7AF3wOHsz1IJTPhpeQDNecAXi9ECjGwndir1vOyh%2Bo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
>
> On 23/9/2022 3:55 μ.μ., Bruce Morton via Cscwg-public wrote:
>
> Hi Martjin,
>
> I will endorse the ballot.
>
> Thanks, Bruce.
>
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org>
> <mailto:cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf Of *Martijn
> Katerbarg via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2022 3:44 AM
> *To:* cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes
> to revocation based on malware
>
> WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
> DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> All,
>
> As discussed on yesterdays call, the latest changes which Tim and
> I were discussing are pushed into Github.
>
> The complete change can be found at
> https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/files
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%2Ffiles&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Cf2e920d96a194144e92408da9fa588be%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637997830583026640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2B%2BPhPxD7FCmgWwu8lewFgwJ3HsqVaQG8xHqh9rDwT0A%3D&reserved=0>
> for review.
>
> Bruce, Ian, since I earlier had your endorsements, please let me
> know if they still stand. The changes since the endorsements, are
> captured in
> https://github.com/cabforum/code-signing/pull/10/commits/90fa38ab4dc5e5f9b25fce844b750d693f7256b7
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F10%2Fcommits%2F90fa38ab4dc5e5f9b25fce844b750d693f7256b7&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Cf2e920d96a194144e92408da9fa588be%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637997830583026640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UGEioAAK0aSj7XRMu5ZHpxJoBjcUwlTp9d2c9c3X%2BWI%3D&reserved=0>
>
> If there are no other comments, then hopefully we can start a
> ballot process on this.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Martijn
>
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 19 July 2022 09:22
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>;
> cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to
> revocation based on malware
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks Tim,
>
> 1. What is the motivation for allowing a waiver if approved by
> just “at least one” of the stakeholders, instead of all of them?
> 2. I’m a bit concerned that language might be increasingly
> troublesome as we continue to expand the scope and
> participation of this group.
>
> I believe it might be difficult to get approval from all
> stakeholders within a certain amount of time, meaning the CA would
> possibly never get all approvals, and never be able to utilize the
> waiver.
>
> Considering that signed code is often (but not exclusively)
> targeted for a specific platform, stakeholders of other platforms
> might not be inclined to give approval for something that does not
> even affect them.
>
> I do share your concern, but I also don’t see a better path
> towards the same goal.
>
> 3. Similarly, I’m unsure how I feel about making compliance
> distinctions based on whether a particular root program has
> decided to have a contractual relationship with its issuers or
> not. That seems like an implementation detail of the
> relationship that the guidelines should remain silent on. But
> I appreciate what that definition is intended to do, and would
> like to perhaps find a different way to express the same intent.
>
> Good point, and maybe the word “contract” is too much here?
>
> Although I would note this language is already part of the
> “Certificate Beneficiaries” definition right now.
>
> I’m open for a different suggestion
>
> *From:*Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, 15 July 2022 18:18
> *To:* Martijn Katerbarg <martijn.katerbarg at sectigo.com>;
> cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to
> revocation based on malware
>
> 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.
>
> What is the motivation for allowing a waiver if approved by just
> “at least one” of the stakeholders, instead of all of them?
>
> I’m a bit concerned that language might be increasingly
> troublesome as we continue to expand the scope and participation
> of this group.
>
> Similarly, I’m unsure how I feel about making compliance
> distinctions based on whether a particular root program has
> decided to have a contractual relationship with its issuers or
> not. That seems like an implementation detail of the relationship
> that the guidelines should remain silent on. But I appreciate
> what that definition is intended to do, and would like to perhaps
> find a different way to express the same intent.
>
> -Tim
>
> *From:*Cscwg-public <cscwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Martijn Katerbarg via Cscwg-public
> *Sent:* Monday, June 27, 2022 10:04 AM
> *To:* cscwg-public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* [Cscwg-public] Proposal to make changes to revocation
> based on malware
>
> All,
>
> As already hinted during the last meeting during the F2F, Ian and
> I, have been working on a proposal affecting the guidelines
> regarding malware based revocation.
>
> The intent of this change is to:
>
> 1. Limit the number of days before a certificate needs to be
> revoked, especially when the subscriber is not responding to
> inquiries
> 2. Remove the OCSP log analysis requirements
> 3. Simplify the process that has to be followed
>
> I have attached 3 documents: one with the current language, one
> with the proposed language, as well as a redlined version.
>
> The changes have been made based on upcoming version 3.0 of the
> CSCBRs. In case you wish to compare with version 2.8, the relevant
> section is 13.1.5.3. Besides to that section, there is also a
> change to the “Suspect Code” definition, as well as a new
> definition in the proposal.
>
> Once PR6
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fcode-signing%2Fpull%2F6&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Cf2e920d96a194144e92408da9fa588be%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637997830583026640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n4OEwF2wENZcybrM2xDM9EydxteMCnk3hFjz4ppMXM4%3D&reserved=0>
> has been merged, I will also prepare the changes in GIT for those
> that prefer comparing there.
>
> Looking forward to comments to this and move towards a potential
> ballot.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martijn
>
> /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
>
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/cscwg-public
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cabforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcscwg-public&data=05%7C01%7Cmartijn.katerbarg%40sectigo.com%7Cf2e920d96a194144e92408da9fa588be%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637997830583026640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hiC5LDgFoTgEPpgOQvckJAi9u5LIynfoW8ZljlmlWxU%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cscwg-public mailing list
> 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/20221129/6b4c2bc7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Cscwg-public
mailing list