[cabfcert_policy] Entropy in Certificate Serial Numbers

["Barreira Iglesias, Iñigo"]

I think the current "should" in the BRs is enough and in any case I think is needed for a CA root, which is "always" shut down or air gapped, has no sense.

 

 

Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.eus <mailto:i-barreira at izenpe.eus>  

945067705

 

 

 

ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezua badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzuna. KONTUZ!
ATENCION! Este mensaje contiene informacion privilegiada o confidencial a la que solo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceriamos que no hiciera uso de la informacion y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente.

 

De: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] En nombre de Mads Egil Henriksveen
Enviado el: jueves, 18 de febrero de 2016 7:17
Para: Robin Alden; 'Ben Wilson'; policyreview at cabforum.org
Asunto: Re: [cabfcert_policy] Entropy in Certificate Serial Numbers

 

Hi Ben

 

This means that we are changing the entropy requirement from 20 bits to 64 bits. This is ok for me, but is this done intentionally?

 

And I understand that the entropy is not required for root certificates. This is also fine, but I would like to understand why this is required for other certificates signed by an (offline) Root CA.  To me there is a major distinction between certificates signed by an offline Root CA and those signed by an online CA. 

 

Regards

Mads

 

From: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Robin Alden
Sent: 17. februar 2016 23:43
To: 'Ben Wilson'; policyreview at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfcert_policy] Entropy in Certificate Serial Numbers

 

Hi Ben,

              I'm fine with the 'unpredictable bits' part, but the serial number thing is already covered in RFC5280.

Why do we need it again in the BRs?

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.1.2.2

says..

"The serial number MUST be a positive integer assigned by the CA to each certificate.  ..."

 

Robin

 

 

From: policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:policyreview-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: 17 February 2016 11:46
To: policyreview at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfcert_policy] Entropy in Certificate Serial Numbers

 

What about  this version of a proposed revision to Section 7.1 of the  BRs?

 

For all Certificates issued after _______, serialNumbers MUST be greater than zero  (0), and for Certificates issued to Subscribers and Intermediate CAs, the serialNumber MUST contain at least 64 unpredictable bits.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20160218/44b31a79/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9540 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/policyreview/attachments/20160218/44b31a79/attachment-0001.jpg