[cabfpub] (Eventually) requiring id-kpServerAuth for all certs in the chain?

[Ryan Sleevi]

It only became a violation under Mozilla's policies precisely because of
the BR ambiguity in allowing "intent". Namely, they introduced language
regarding technical capability, with a definition, and require all such
certs conform to Mozilla's policies.

However, even today, under v2.2 of Mozilla's policies, that would allow a
CA to have such intermediates unaudited, since the BRs can allow them to
dismiss the intermediate via intent. It must be disclosed to Mozilla, and
must be audited, but the audit could be to the extent to say "This is out
of scope", which the auditor can then happily certify.

Note that this required specific language from Mozilla to bring in scope to
their requirements what should be quite obvious to CAs. Gerv's proposal -
and the one proposed back in Mountain View and Brian has rechoed here -
both seek ways to incorporating that common sense definition into the BRs,
so that there is no confusion on the expectations of both CAs and auditors.
On Nov 5, 2014 9:53 AM, "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
wrote:

>  Thanks for the clarification, Ryan.
>
>
>
> Not to argue, but I would point out that if a CA is discovered to be using
> an (unconstrained, unmarked) intermediate from a trusted root to issue SSL
> certs without subjecting that intermediate and cert to full WebTrust/ETSI
> audit coverage – that would be a major violation of the Chrome and Firefox
> root program rules.  True, you would only discover that violation after the
> fact – but that’s the same as if the CA marked the intermediate as “usable
> for SSL” and then failed to subject it and EE certs to CA’s audit regime.
> In both cases, the browsers would find out about the violation long after
> the fact.
>
>
>
> Given it’s a violation in both cases, and browsers will find out late in
> both cases – what is the advantage in requiring the intermediates to be
> marked?
>
>
>
> It seems the browsers have to come up with effective sanctions or other
> measures against the non-complying CA in both cases…
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2014 9:38 AM
> *To:* Kirk Hall (RD-US)
> *Cc:* Gervase Markham; CABFPub
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] (Eventually) requiring id-kpServerAuth for all
> certs in the chain?
>
>
>
> Under the current audit requirements, a CA can issue an intermediate that
> has full power and capability of issuing trusted TLS certs, and then
> declare it out of scope of audit, because they don't "intend" for it to
> issue TLS certs.
>
> This hand-wave does not require disclosure to auditors, nor to root
> programs, and yet still provides the same risk profile as incidents such as
> DigiNotar or India CCA.
>
> Gerv is proposing a technical means to express this intent, so that it is
> clear to all parties the risk profile involved. Gerv's proposal is "opt-in"
> - that is, by a certain timeframe, all CAs must reissue to conform to the
> scheme, and anyone not conforming to the scheme is out of scope, and UAs
> will be updated to require certs conform.
>
> My proposal is "opt out" - by declaring every certificate transitively
> issued by a root to be in scope for the BRs, the burden is placed upon the
> CA to use technical means to exclude their "non-TLS" intermediates from
> being in scope. This is weaker in some ways (it lacks the hard enforcement
> on the client side that Gerv proposes), but as both schemes rely on
> auditors, I believe they represent the same effective risk profiles.
>
> On Nov 5, 2014 9:29 AM, "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" <
> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> wrote:
>
> Gerv, I'm slow on this argument, but I'm trying to figure out why markers
> in intermediates are important.
>
> Under the current scheme, it seems the trusted status of the root is
> what's important, not the status of intermediates.  CAs must get WebTrust/
> ETSI audits covering their operations from those roots to be trusted and
> included in the browser root store.  The audits are supposed to cover all
> (SSL) operations from that root.  Ultimately, it's a binary yes/no decision
> on whether to keep the root in the root store based on audit results, plus
> compliance with other root program requirements.  I suppose rogue
> intermediates from the roots can also be explicitly untrusted by browsers
> if needed.
>
> What are the objectives of the proposals to put markers (EKUs or OIDs) in
> intermediates?  Is it not possible to meet those objectives using the
> current system of trusted root / audit of all (SSL) operations from that
> root?
>
> Just curious.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
> Behalf Of Gervase Markham
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 11:46 AM
> To: CABFPub
> Subject: [cabfpub] (Eventually) requiring id-kpServerAuth for all certs in
> the chain?
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I wonder if the BRs should say that all non-root certs in a chain issued
> for SSL server use, which were issued after <date>, should have EKU
> id-kpServerAuth in them. Date would be, say, six months from now.
>
> This is primarily aimed at intermediates; EE certs all currently have this
> anyway. It would mean that, over time (years) as intermediates got
> replaced, we could eventually move to a position where it was entirely
> clear what certs were intended for Web PKI SSL use and what certs were not.
>
> Currently, any intermediate in the world issued by a publicly-trusted root
> can issue for SSL, even those intermediates which are not intended for such
> use. This leads to numerous problems, including the question of whether
> such intermediates need to be covered by a BR audit. Once this change had
> filtered through, it would be clear - they would not be.
>
> AIUI, EKU "chaining" (i.e. requiring an EKU to be present all the way up
> the chain) is not standard, but is implemented in NSS and elsewhere.
>
> I know this is a thing which only pays off in the long term, but I still
> think it's worth it. Does this make any sense, or have I missed something
> obvious? :-)
>
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> <table class="TM_EMAIL_NOTICE"><tr><td><pre>
> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
> and 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.
> </pre></td></tr></table>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
> and 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20141105/c2f588ae/attachment-0003.html>