[cabfpub] Fwd: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.

Thu Nov 8 01:30:39 MST 2012

Rick,

Erwann is right. For example, we don´t have deltaCRLs, only fullCRLs and allow suspension and reactivation. Once the certificate is suspended, we generate a new CRL (so, it means it´s revoked and you can see the reason) and the OCSP says is revoked. When you actívate it again, a new CRL is created and you don´t see this cert and the OCSP says good.

A practical example, one citizen calls saying he can´t find his smartcard so ask for suspension, so a period time is allowed, for example 15 days, to find it (after that time the certificate can be automatically revoked) but if he finds the smartcard in the couch or in another wallet, etc. then he can calls the CA back (or use another procedure) and say, hey, I found it, can you actívate it back? And that´s it.

Other example can be when delivering the smartcards to the users by post, this can be done in suspended mode (the certs are issued in suspended mode or just turn into suspend mode after being issued or whatever procedure has been implemented), then when the user receives the card and also the pin and puk, so can call to actívate it or use a web application or whatever mechanish the TSP has adopted.

regards

Iñigo Barreira
Responsable del Área técnica
i-barreira at izenpe.net

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: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] En nombre de Erwann ABALEA
Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de noviembre de 2012 23:08
Para: Rick Andrews
CC: public at cabforum.org
Asunto: Re: [cabfpub] Fwd: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.

Bonsoir Rick,

If you don't allow resumption, then the certificate status stays revoked with certificateHold reason.

If you allow resumption but don't offer deltaCRLs, then you can't express this resumption (i.e. explicitely tell the certificate is now in a removeFromCRL state). But the certificate isn't revoked anymore and disappears from the complete CRL.

Nothing in the RFC or X.509 forbids suspension of certificates in complete CRLs. X.509 is again more clear on how to deal with it, here's an excerpt of clause 8.5.2.2 (200811 edition):

-----

Once a hold has been issued, it may be handled in one of three ways:

a) it may remain on the CRL with no further action, causing users to reject transactions issued during the hold period; or,

b) it may be replaced by a (final) revocation for the same certificate, in which case the reason shall be one of the standard reasons for revocation, the revocation date shall be the date the certificate was placed on hold, and the optional instruction code extension field shall not appear; or,

c) it may be explicitly released and the entry removed from the CRL.

-----

Just after follows the description and use-case of removeFromCRL reason code.

(this email will be rejected by cabfpub because I'm not posting from work, can you manually forward it, please?)

2012/11/7 Rick Andrews <Rick_Andrews at symantec.com>

Erwann,

I agree that resumption (removeFromCRL) is allowed only in delta CRLs, but I don’t understand your interpretation of the RFC. If you’re using full CRLs and you allow suspension but not resumption, then either

(a)    The cert must must remain suspended until it expires, or

(b)   The cert status can change from suspended (certificateHold) to valid

If (a), why use certificateHold at all? Why not use one of the other revocation reasons?

If (b), it seems that most people who have commented in this thread believe that should not be allowed.

-Rick

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Erwann Abalea
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:53 AM
To: public at cabforum.org

Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Fwd: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.

Resumption is necessary in deltaCRLs, and is only allowed in deltaCRLs.
Suspension is allowed in every type of CRLs.
We produce deltaCRLs for some CAs but no public one.

-- 
Erwann ABALEA

Le 07/11/2012 19:25, Rick Andrews a écrit :

	When I looked at the RFC some time ago, it seemed that suspension and resumption were only allowed in delta CRLs. I don’t know of any CAs or browsers that support delta CRLs.

	-Rick

	From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of i-barreira at izenpe.net
	Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:52 AM
	To: eddy_nigg at startcom.org; public at cabforum.org
	Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Fwd: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.

	On the CRL you can suspend a certificate (the response is revoked) and turned it back to a good status and this is perfectly valid.

	Iñigo Barreira
	Responsable del Área técnica
	i-barreira at izenpe.net

	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: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] En nombre de Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
	Enviado el: miércoles, 31 de octubre de 2012 21:45
	Para: public at cabforum.org
	Asunto: Re: [cabfpub] Fwd: [pkix] Straw-poll on OCSP responses for non-revoked certificates.

	On 10/31/2012 10:32 PM, From Ben Wilson: 

	If a modification of RFC 2560 allows an extension to change the meaning of a “1” response to something else.  It was you who said “[it] might be good, …, either due to migration and update time or other reasons (out-of-sync cor whatever).”

	Yes, that's why I think using "Unknown" is the correct response and not revoked for those. A revoked certificate can't be made valid ever after as long as it hasn't expired. And "Unknown" != "Good".

	However once a certificate was marked as revoked, in my opinion a client doesn't have to check again ever.

Regards 

Signer: 

Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO

StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org> 

XMPP: 

startcom at startcom.org

Blog: 

Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org> 

Twitter: 

Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg> 

	_______________________________________________
	Public mailing list
	Public at cabforum.org
	https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-- 
Erwann.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121108/c9a441d1/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19121 bytes
Desc: image001.png
Url : http://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121108/c9a441d1/attachment-0001.png 