[cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
Steenbergen, Sander
sander.steenbergen at kpn.com
Tue Nov 20 16:24:34 UTC 2012
Hi Steve,
I agree with Mark.
kind regards,
Sander Steenbergen
Product Manager
KPN Trusted Services
KPN Corporate Market BV
Fauststraat 1
7323 BA Apeldoorn
P.O. box 9105
7300 HN Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
M +31 (0)6 2952 6432
F +31 (0)55 577 8686
sander.steenbergen at kpn.com<mailto:sander.steenbergen at kpn.com>
http://www.kpn.com
KPN Corporate Market BV, Handelsregister 52959597 Amsterdam
The information transmitted is intended only for use by the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of it, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons and/or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please inform the sender and/or addressee immediately and delete the material. Thank you.
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Janssen, M.A. (Mark) - Logius
Sent: dinsdag 20 november 2012 14:59
To: Steve Roylance
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
Hi Steve,
Thanks.
I have to agree with Rich on this. We communicated the transition period (“Prior to issuing a Certificate containing….. a Reserved IP Address or Internal Server Name.”) to our users. Some of our users have to change their systems to be able to use FQDN certs. I expect that further limiting the transition period regarding the use of the Subject Common Name Field will lead to (big) problems for those users.
As you stated below this change is about: “Relying parties should have some information about the entity behind a certificate…. This change ensures that all certificates are tied to some verified information.” Therefore I would like to propose that there are no changes to the timeframe for short names in OV certs. Should this not be possible than Logius PKIoverheid will vote against this change.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Mark Janssen
Senior Advisor PKIoverheid
........................................................................
Logius
The ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK)
Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 52 | 2595 AN | The Hague
P.O. Box 96810 | 2509 JE | The Hague
........................................................................
T +31(0) 70 8887 967
F +31(0) 70 8887 882
mark.janssen at logius.nl<mailto:mark.janssen at logius.nl>
http://www.logius.nl/<https://webmail.ictu.nl/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.logius.nl/>
........................................................................
Service e-government
........................................................................
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this mail?
Van: Steve Roylance [mailto:steve.roylance at globalsign.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 20 november 2012 12:21
Aan: Janssen, M.A. (Mark) - Logius
CC: public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
Sorry Mark… I pressed send too soon and focussed on the overall shortname use rather than the CommonName us in my last post.
There are indeed changes to the timeframe for short names in the Common name as Erwann highlighted in his post. Shortnames will not be allowed in the CN from July 1st 2013
Section 9.2.2 has the sentence at the end and I've underlined it.
Contents: If present, this field MUST contain a single Public IP address or single Fully-Qualified Domain Name that is one of the values contained in the Certificate’s subjectAltName extension (see Section 9.2.1). Reserved IP Addresses and Internal Server Names are prohibited.
Steve
From: Steve Roylance <steve.roylance at globalsign.com<mailto:steve.roylance at globalsign.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 2012 11:13
To: "Janssen, M.A. (Mark) - Logius" <mark.janssen at logius.nl<mailto:mark.janssen at logius.nl>>
Cc: "public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>" <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
Hi Mark,
Yes, there are no changes to the timeframe for short names in OV certificates.
The proposed wording for this requirement is read as follows:
If the subjectAltName is:
3) a Reserved IP Address or Internal Server Name,
then the CA MUST verify the identity of an entity that controls the private key in accordance with Section 11.2 and include the Subject Identity Information in the issued Certificate in accordance with 9.2.4.
Here's a summary for short names across certificates.
EV – Shortnames not supported due to the requirement for SANs to have FQDNs only.
OV/IV – Shortnames allowed until the sunset dates in 2015/2016 under current BR rules and under Ballot 92 rules.
DV – Shortnames to sunset earlier under Ballot 92 in July 2013 due to lack of traceability for all parties with this certificate variant. (Relying party, Subscriber and CA)
Steve
From: "Janssen, M.A. (Mark) - Logius" <mark.janssen at logius.nl<mailto:mark.janssen at logius.nl>>
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 2012 10:47
To: "public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>" <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
So, do I understand it correctly that an OV cert which includes a Reserved IP Address or an Internal Server Name in the Subject Common Name Field is not prohibited? If so this should be made clear in the ballot.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Mark Janssen
Senior Advisor PKIoverheid
........................................................................
Logius
The ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK)
Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 52 | 2595 AN | The Hague
P.O. Box 96810 | 2509 JE | The Hague
........................................................................
T +31(0) 70 8887 967
F +31(0) 70 8887 882
mark.janssen at logius.nl<mailto:mark.janssen at logius.nl>
http://www.logius.nl/<https://webmail.ictu.nl/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.logius.nl/>
........................................................................
Service e-government
........................................................................
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this mail?
Van: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] Namens Jeremy Rowley
Verzonden: donderdag 15 november 2012 23:27
Aan: richard.smith at comodo.com<mailto:richard.smith at comodo.com>; 'Steve Roylance'; public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
The reason is the same as the rest of the changes in this ballot. Relying parties should have some information about the entity behind a certificate. With internal servers names, there isn’t a link between a validated domain and a specific entity. With a DV certificate, this problem is exasperated since the relying party has absolutely no information about the certificate holder of an internal name certificate (a DV certificate containing only mail.server contains no independently verified information) This change ensures that all certificates are tied to some verified information.
Jeremy
From:public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Rich Smith
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:52 PM
To: 'Steve Roylance'; public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
Since many clients and servers will still choke on a cert with no Common Name. Prohibiting Reserved IPs and Internal host names in the CN field effectively prohibits single site certificates for Reserved IPs and internal names. What's the reasoning behind this?
From:public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]<mailto:[mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org]> On Behalf Of Steve Roylance
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:28 PM
To: public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>; CABForum Management
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 92 - Subject Alternative Names
https://www.cabforum.org/wiki/92%20-%20Subject%20Alternative%20Names
Steve Roylance of GlobalSign made the following motion and Yngve Pettersen of Opera and Jeremy Rowley of Digicert have endorsed it:
... Motion begins...
Effective on the 1st July 2013
... Erratum begins ...
The following sections will be amended in the Baseline Requirements document.
INSERT in Section 4. Definitions the following:
Public IP Address: An IP Address that is not a Reserved IP Address.
REPLACE Section 9.2.1 (Subject Alternative Name Extension) with the following:
9.2.1 Subject Alternative Name Extension
Certificate Field: extensions:subjectAltName
Required/Optional: Required
Contents: This extension MUST contain at least one entry that is either a Fully-Qualified Domain Name or Public IP Address. Each subjectAltName entry MUST either be a Domain Name or an IP Address. The CA MUST confirm the Applicant’s control of each dNSName or Public IP Address entry in accordance with Section 11.1.
SubjectAltName entries MAY include domain Names containing wildcard characters.
If the subjectAltName is:
1) a Public IP Address,
2) a Registered Domain Name that has a Domain Name Registrant different than (and not an Affiliate of) the Domain Name Registrant of any other Registered Domain Name in the subjectAltName extension in the Certificate, or
3) a Reserved IP Address or Internal Server Name.
then the CA MUST verify the identity of an entity that controls the private key in accordance with Section 11.2 and include the Subject Identity Information in the issued Certificate in accordance with 9.2.4. The CA MAY include explanatory information in the Subject Organizational Unit field or a non-subject certificate field to clarify the Subject Identity Information included in the Certificate.
Prior to issuing a Certificate containing an Internal Server Name or Reserved IP Address, the CA SHALL notify the Applicant that the use of such Certificates has been deprecated by the CA / Browser Forum and that the practice will be eliminated by October 2016. As of the Effective Date, the CA SHALL NOT issue a certificate with an Expiry Date later than 1 November 2015 if the subjectAlternativeName contains a Reserved IP Address or Internal Server Name. Effective 1 October 2016, CAs SHALL revoke all unexpired Certificates whose subjectAlternativeName extension or Subject commonName field contains a Reserved IP Address or Internal Server Name.
REPLACE Section 9.2.2 (Subject Common Name Field) with the following:
9.2.2 Subject Common Name Field
Certificate Field: subject:commonName (OID 2.5.4.3)
Required/Optional: Deprecated (Discouraged, but not prohibited)
Contents: If present, this field MUST contain a single Public IP address or single Fully-Qualified Domain Name that is one of the values contained in the Certificate’s subjectAltName extension (see Section 9.2.1). Reserved IP Addresses and Internal Server Names are prohibited.
REPLACE Section 10.2.3 (Information Requirements) with the following:
10.2.3 Information Requirements
The certificate request MAY include all factual information about the Applicant to be included in the Certificate, and such additional information as is necessary for the CA to obtain from the Applicant in order to comply with these Requirements and the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement. In cases where the certificate request does not contain all the necessary information about the Applicant, the CA SHALL obtain the remaining information from the Applicant or, having obtained it from a reliable, independent, third-party data source, confirm it with the Applicant.
Applicant information MUST include, but not be limited to, at least one Subject Alternative Name as defined in Section 9.2.1.
INSERT in Section 11.1 (Authorization by Domain Name Registrant) the following two new sections:
11.1.3 Wildcard Domain Validation
Before issuing a certificate with a wildcard character (*) in a CN or subjectAltName of type DNS-ID, the CA MUST establish and follow a documented procedure† that determines if the wildcard character occurs in the first label position to the left of a “registry-controlled” label or “public suffix” (e.g. “*.com”, “*.co.uk”, see RFC 6454 Section 8.2 for further explanation). If a wildcard would fall within the label immediately to the left of a registry-controlled† or public suffix, CAs SHALL refuse issuance unless the applicant proves its rightful control of the entire Domain Namespace. (e.g. CAs SHALL NOT issue “*.co.uk”, but MAY issue “*.example.co.uk” to Example Ltd.)
†Determination of what is “registry-controlled” versus the registerable portion of a Country Code Top-Level Domain Namespace is not standardized at the time of writing and is not a property of the DNS itself. Current best practice is to consult a “public suffix list” such as http://publicsuffix.org/. If the process for making this determination is standardized by an RFC, then such a procedure SHOULD be preferred.
... Erratum ends ...
The review period for this ballot shall commence at 21:00 UTC on 15 November 2012 and will close at 21:00 UTC on 22 November 2012. Unless the motion is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will start immediately thereafter and will close at 21:00 UTC on 29 November 2012. Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.
... Motions ends ...
A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the response.
A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A vote to abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any representative of a voting member before the close of the voting period will be counted.
Voting members are listed here: http://www.cabforum.org/forum.html
In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the votes cast by members in the CA category and one half or more of the votes cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also, at least six members must participate in the ballot, either by voting in favor, voting against or abstaining.
________________________________
Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages. .
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
________________________________
Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages. .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20121120/e5526479/attachment-0004.html>
More information about the Public
mailing list