[cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names

[Jeremy Rowley]

Are you trying to assert that requiring a photo ID and address document provides less assurance than checking the WHOIS to see if it matches the applicant’s name?  I strongly disagree.

 

Jeremy 

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 11:26 AM
To: 'CABForum Management'; public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names

 

The question is not if it's "acceptable to continue", but if there is evidence to show that banning a wide swath of DV issuance is an effective improvement that merits the increased cost and effort that it requires of customers.

 

The "evidence" shown so far has been a hypothetical threat that a relying party would trust a DV certificate in a situation where an OV certificate would be distrusted due to the additional information contained in the O field.  In addition, it has been stated that the validation process for an OV cert provides better traceability and presents an overall "higher bar" to deter a malicious applicant.

 

The first assertion assumes that the relying party is going to drill into the certificate details to examine the O field before trusting the cert.  The second assertion implies that the standard for getting an "individual" OV cert is a significantly higher bar.  That requires the applicant to submit a copy of a photo ID and a copy of a utility bill.  That's our idea of raising the bar?

 

I think we'd all be better off if we focus on educating our customers about the benefits of different types of certs and then letting them choose, rather than continuing to try to mandate their behavior.

 

Meanwhile, if this ballot is approved, a lot of people relying on publicly trusted certs for completely private systems will have been misled by the CAB Forum's original 2015 deadline and be immediately forced to buy OV.

 

Thanks,

 

Wayne

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
From: Steve Roylance < <mailto:steve.roylance at globalsign.com> steve.roylance at globalsign.com>
Date: Fri, November 16, 2012 10:33 am
To: " <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" < <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
Cc: 'CABForum Management' < <mailto:management at cabforum.org> management at cabforum.org>,
" <mailto:public at cabforum.org> public at cabforum.org" < <mailto:public at cabforum.org> public at cabforum.org>

Kirk,

 

It is NOT meant to prohibit  all types of DV SANs

 

It is meant to prohibit DV SANs under certain conditions i.e. where non unique information is contained, or Public IPs are used, or there is a mixture of owners as detailed by the domain registration.

 

If you own  <http://kirk.com> kirk.com and  <http://finewineexpert.com> finewineexpert.com then you can have both inside if they are registered to you.

 

Please read the text again carefully and highlight which situation you specifically don't agree with and why you feel it's acceptable to continue.

 

Steve

 

From: " <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" < <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
Date: Friday, 16 November 2012 17:24
To: CABForum Management < <mailto:management at cabforum.org> management at cabforum.org>, " <mailto:public at cabforum.org> public at cabforum.org" < <mailto:public at cabforum.org> public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfman] [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names

 

To help members evaluate Ballot 92 we are attaching a side-by-side comparison of current Baseline Requirements language with the proposed new language.  As before, the intent of this ballot is to prohibit DV SANs certificates, which we will oppose.

 

Trend Micro does not issue DV certificates, but we think they serve a valuable security function in increasing the use of SSL.  Forcing customers to buy OV certs instead is anti-competitive and will likely lead to less use of SSL to secure sites.



TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidentialand may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.

_______________________________________________ Management mailing list  <mailto:Management at cabforum.org> Management at cabforum.org  <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management 


  _____  


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121116/1cbe6289/attachment-0004.html>