[cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot [93] - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)

Wed Oct 31 10:31:56 MST 2012

Given the current discussion about the Appendix A part of the ballot, what  
do people think about adding "Effective Jan. 1, 2013" for ballot point E  
(Appending A, point 4, issue 10)?

Could endorsers please re-endorse if this OK?

(Maybe we should have had this discussion last week?)

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:21:15 +0100, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> wrote:

> Reminder:  Ballot 93 closes in less than 24 hours.  So far I believe that
> DigiCert, Comodo, Izenpe, and Opera have voted yes.  Attached is an  
> updated
> redline and below is the current ballot text:
>
> Ballot 93 - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)
>
> Yngve N. Pettersen (Opera) made the following motion, endorsed by Jeremy
> Rowley, Digicert and Robin Alden, Comodo:
>
> --- Motion begins ---
>
> Effective immediately
>
> Erratum begins:
>
> A. (Issue #8)
> Add the following as 10.2.5:
> "10.2.5 Subordinate CA Private Key
> Parties other than the Subordinate CA SHALL NOT archive the Subordinate  
> CA
> Private Keys. If the Issuing CA generated the Private Key on behalf of  
> the
> Subordinate CA, then the Issuing CA SHALL encrypt the Private Key for
> transport to the Subordinate CA. If the Issuing CA becomes aware that a
> Subordinate CA's Private Key has been communicated to an unauthorized  
> person
> or an organization not affiliated with the Subordinate CA, then the  
> Issuing
> CA SHALL revoke all certificates that include the Public Key  
> corresponding
> to the communicated Private Key."
>
> B. (Issue #8)
> . Replace the heading of section 13.1.5 with "Reasons for Revoking a
> Subscriber Certificate"
> . Add the following as section 13.1.6:
> "13.1.6 Reasons for Revoking a Subordinate CA Certificate
> The Issuing CA SHALL revoke a Subordinate CA Certificate within seven (7)
> days if one or more of the following occurs:
> 1. The Subordinate CA requests revocation in writing;
> 2. The Subordinate CA notifies the Issuing CA that the original  
> certificate
> request was not authorized and does not retroactively grant  
> authorization;
> 3. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Subordinate CA's Private Key
> corresponding to the Public Key in the Certificate suffered a Key  
> Compromise
> or no longer complies with the requirements of Appendix A,
> 4. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was misused;
> 5. The Issuing CA is made aware that the Certificate was not issued in
> accordance with or that Subordinate CA has not complied with these  
> Baseline
> Requirements or the applicable Certificate Policy or Certification  
> Practice
> Statement;
> 6. The Issuing CA determines that any of the information appearing in the
> Certificate is inaccurate or misleading;
> 7. The Issuing CA or Subordinate CA ceases operations for any reason and  
> has
> not made arrangements for another CA to provide revocation support for  
> the
> Certificate;
> 8. The Issuing CA's or Subordinate CA's right to issue Certificates under
> these Requirements expires or is revoked or terminated, unless the  
> Issuing
> CA has made arrangements to continue maintaining the CRL/OCSP Repository;
> 9. Revocation is required by the Issuing CA's Certificate Policy and/or
> Certification Practice Statement; or
> 10. The technical content or format of the Certificate presents an
> unacceptable risk to Application Software Suppliers or Relying Parties  
> (e.g.
> the CA/Browser Forum might determine that a deprecated
> cryptographic/signature algorithm or key size presents an unacceptable  
> risk
> and that such Certificates should be revoked and replaced by CAs within a
> given period of time)."
>
> C. (Issue #6)
> .Replace Section 13.1.5(3) with: "(3) The CA obtains evidence that the
> Subscriber's Private Key corresponding to the Public Key in the  
> Certificate
> suffered a Key Compromise (also see Section 10.2.4) or no longer complies
> with the requirements of Appendix A,"
> .Add the following as a new Section 13.1.5(4) and renumber the remaining
> bullet points:
> "(4) The CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was misused;"
> .Replace the definition of Key Compromise with the following:
> "Key Compromise: A Private Key is said to be compromised if its value has
> been disclosed to an unauthorized person, an unauthorized person has had
> access to it, or there exists a practical technique by which an  
> unauthorized
> person may discover its value. A Private Key is also considered  
> compromised
> if methods have been developed that can easily calculate it based on the
> Public Key (such as a Debian weak key, see  
> http://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys)
> or if there is clear evidence that the specific method used to generate  
> the
> Private Key was flawed."
>
> D. (Issue #21)
> Add new section 13.2.7: "13.2.7 Certificate Suspension.
> The Repository MUST NOT include entries that indicate that a Certificate  
> is
> suspended."
>
> E. (Issue #10)
> Add the following after Appendix A, table (3):
> "(4) General requirements for public keys: Public keys SHOULD follow the
> recommendations of NIST SP 800-73-3
> <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-78-3/sp800-78-3.pdf>
> RSA: The value of the public exponent MUST be an odd number equal to 3 or
> more, and it SHOULD be in the range between 65,537 (= (2^16)+1) and
> (2^256)-1."
> Erratum ends
> ... Motion ends ...
> The review period for this ballot shall commence at 21:00 UTC on 17  
> October
> 2012 and will close at 21:00 UTC on 24 October 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 31 October 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.

-- 
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen
********************************************************************
Senior Developer		     Email: yngve at opera.com
Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
Phone:  +47 96 90 41 51              Fax:    +47 23 69 24 01
********************************************************************