[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Fri Sep 5 16:43:26 MST 2014


On Sep 5, 2014 4:35 PM, "kirk_hall at trendmicro.com" <kirk_hall at trendmicro.com>
wrote:
>
> Ben, I have an amendment to propose, in the form of the language below
(to be added at the end of your language in Sec. 8.2.2.  A word of
explanation:  every time CAA has come up as a topic of discussion at a CAB
Forum meeting or on a call, one or more CAs and browsers

I have yet to hear a browser express this concern.

> have expressed concern that CAA could be used as a "blocking" strategy by
CAs in order to add hurdles for another CA to sell certificates to the same
customer.  The main way this could happen is if a CA induces a customer to
insert its name to a CAA record when there is no CAA record at the time for
the customer (or even worse, adds its name to a blank CAA record in the
customer's name -- this could happen if the fine print of the Subscriber
Agreement authorizes the CA to insert its name in a CAA record for the
customer and the customer has no idea this is happening).  Another
potential abuse would be if a CA got its name put in blank CAA records for
other domains registered to the customer that are not even part of the
pending certificate order so that other CAs would find it more difficult to
sell certificates for those domains.
>
>
>
> There seems to be strong sentiment among CAs and browsers for some
language prohibiting this potential practice as anticompetitive.

I have yet to hear a browser express this concern.

> The decision of whether or not to even have a CAA record should be solely
up to the customer, not the CA.
>
>
>
> With this explanation, here is my suggestion for additional language for
this pre-ballot:
>
>
>
> In order to make certain that CAA is not used by CAs in an
anticompetitive manner, no CA shall (1) request or suggest that a customer
include the CA’s name in a CAA record for the domain in question if the
customer does not already have a CAA record that includes the name of one
or more other CAs but omits the CA’s name, (2) obtain authorization from
the customer to act on the customer’s behalf (directly or by request to the
customer’s DNS operator) to create a CAA record for the customer that
includes the CA’s name for the domain in question if the customer does not
already have a CAA record that includes the name of one or more other CAs
but omits the CA’s name, or (3) request or suggest that a customer include
the CA’s name in a CAA record for other domains not the subject of the
customer’s certificate order or obtain authorization from the customer to
act on the customer’s behalf (directly or by request to the customer’s DNS
operator) to create a CAA record for the customer for other domains not the
subject of the customer’s certificate order.
>
>
>
> What do you think?  Does this meet everyone’s stated concerns?

If you feel strongly about this, I feel it is worth a separate ballot. I do
not support burdening this ballot with that language.
>
>
>
> [Also – typo below – “(section 4.1 for CA’s still conforming to RFC
2527)” should be “(section 4.1 for CAs still conforming to RFC 2527)”]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:02 PM
> To: Sigbjørn Vik; Rick Andrews; Geoff Keating; Stephen Davidson; Ryan
Sleevi (sleevi at google.com)
> Cc: cabfpub
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records
>
>
>
> Picking up where we left off .. attached is the redlined version that I
think is closest to where we were on this issue:
>
>
>
> 1.  In Section 4 of the Baseline Requirements, add a definition for CAA
Record as follows:
>
>
>
> CAA Record: The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS Resource
Record of RFC 6844
>
> (http:tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844) that allows a DNS domain name holder
to specify the Certification Authorities
>
> (CAs) authorized to issue certificates for that domain. Publication of a
CAA Resource Record allows public Certification Authorities to implement
additional controls to reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-issue.
>
>
>
> We might want to abbreviate this definition a bit.
>
>
>
> 2.  In Section 8.2.2 (instead of editing warranties in section 7.1.2 or
verification practices in section 11, as some have suggested) add the
following to the end of the paragraph on Disclosure:
>
>
>
> Effective as of [insert date that is six months from Ballot 125
adoption], section 4.2 of a CA's Certificate Policy and/or Certification
Practice Statement (section 4.1 for CA’s still conforming to RFC 2527) shall
>
> disclose: (1) whether the CA reviews CAA Records, and if so, (2) the CA’s
policy or practice on processing CAA Records and comparing them with
proposed Domain Names for the Common Name field or Subject Alternative Name
fields of certificates applications, and (3) any actions taken as result of
such comparison.
>
>
>
> Any comments or suggestions are welcome.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Sigbjørn Vik
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:47 AM
>
> To: Rick Andrews; Geoff Keating; Stephen Davidson
>
> Cc: cabfpub
>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records
>
>
>
> On 21-Jul-14 20:11, Rick Andrews wrote:
>
> > Siggy, how does the addition of a CAA record make DoS or DNS
>
> > amplification
>
> attacks more problematic?
>
>
>
> I am no DNS expert, merely relaying comments from our sysadmin. If people
with more knowledge in the field conclude that this is not an issue, that
is fine with me, but it should be considered.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Sigbjørn Vik [mailto:sigbjorn at opera.com]
>
> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:21 AM
>
> > To: Rick Andrews; Geoff Keating; Stephen Davidson
>
> > Cc: cabfpub
>
> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 125 - CAA Records
>
> >
>
> > On 17-Jul-14 23:51, Rick Andrews wrote:> Siggy,
>
> >>
>
> >> There are a number of Security Considerations in Section 6 of the CAA
>
> >> RFC (_http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844#page-13_) which detail
>
> >> possible abuse.
>
> >
>
> > I don't see DoS or DNS amplification listed there.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Sigbjørn Vik
>
> > Opera Software
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sigbjørn Vik
>
> Opera Software
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140905/eae08e91/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Public mailing list