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

Steve Roylance steve.roylance at globalsign.com
Sun Nov 18 17:47:21 UTC 2012


Hi Wayne, 

This is not an Anti DV debate at all as the majority of certificates will be
unaffected by this ballot.  It simply accelerates the demise of those
certificates that are dangerous and already on the path to be deprecated.

I too agree that we should continue to look at EV, but the proverb the
"devil is in the detail" is useful here as SANs were not adequately covered
in the original drafts.

Finally the title of the ballot is not misleading.  It's entirely accurate
as it clarifies what can be included in a Subject Alternative Name - i.e.
The "detail" from my previous point.

Steve

From:  Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com>
Date:  Friday, 16 November 2012 20:53
To:  CABForum Management <management at cabforum.org>, "public at cabforum.org"
<public at cabforum.org>
Subject:  Re: [cabfman] [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names

Hi Steve,

I'm glad we agree on the market-drive approach.  I'm also happy that you are
so passionate about improving our industry, but I clearly disagree with your
assessment of this particular proposal as being a valuable enhancement to
the reliability of public SSL certificates.  If only we could redirect all
the energy being spent on this anti-DV debate on things like revocation
enhancements and making EV more accessible.

Finally, the title of this ballot is still misleading with the latest
addition of a ban on DV certs for internal names.

Thanks,

Wayne

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [cabfman] [cabfpub]  Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
> From: Steve Roylance <steve.roylance at globalsign.com>
> Date: Fri, November 16, 2012 12:28 pm
> To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com>
> Cc: 'CABForum Management' <management at cabforum.org>,
> "public at cabforum.org" <public at cabforum.org>
> 
> Hi Wayne,
> 
> I'm behind you all the way on the education front.   That's really important
> for all parties as certificates are difficult to understand and prone to
> mistakes by subscribers especially if it's not clear what they are agreeing to
> when they purchase.  A consistent approach is promised by the Base
> Requirements however today the approach is not consistent as there are too
> many variables that were not adequately tied down in the final document.  That
> is what this ballot attempts to fix.
> 
> ICANN suggested improvements to their industry in 2002
> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03sep02-en.htm )  in
> 2012 it's still ongoing.
> 
> In this ballot we are suggesting improvements to ours, so lets hope we can all
> find an accord that works.
> 
> We listened to the feedback last time and amended the ballot accordingly to
> ensure we were not misleading anyone.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> From:  Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com>
> Date:  Friday, 16 November 2012 18:26
> To:  CABForum Management <management at cabforum.org>, "public at cabforum.org"
> <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject:  Re: [cabfman] [cabfpub] 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 <steve.roylance at globalsign.com>
>>  Date: Fri, November 16, 2012 10:33 am
>>  To: "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
>>  Cc: 'CABForum Management' <management at cabforum.org>,
>>  "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 kirk.com <http://kirk.com>  and finewineexpert.com
>> <http://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:  "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
>> Date:  Friday, 16 November 2012 17:24
>> To:  CABForum Management <management at cabforum.org>, "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
>> Management at cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>>  Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>  _______________________________________________ Management mailing list
> Management at cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management
_______________________________________________ Management mailing list
Management at cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121118/a653ebb0/attachment-0004.html>


More information about the Public mailing list