[cabfpub] [cabfc_s] Code Signing Baseline Requirements

Tue Aug 18 13:47:12 UTC 2015

I think I found a typo in the latest draft.

Section 9.2.1, item 4: I believe the second instance of "Unicode 2D" should be "Unicode 20", which is the correct code for space.

-Tim

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:46 AM
To: Rich Smith
Cc: codesigning at cabforum.org; 'CABFPub'
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [cabfc_s] Code Signing Baseline Requirements

Rich,
We'll be discussing another proposed update on today's call which is at noon EST if you want to join.
Dean

From: Rich Smith [mailto:richard.smith at comodo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 9:24 AM
To: Dean Coclin
Cc: Jody Cloutier; Ben Wilson; 'CABFPub'; codesigning at cabforum.org<mailto:codesigning at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [cabfc_s] Code Signing Baseline Requirements

OK, thanks Dean.  It seemed like it had been further back than February, and I was concerned that perhaps the document had undergone significant changes since the public review.  That seems not to be the case, so I'm fine with moving forward.
-Rich
On 8/12/2015 5:10 PM, Dean Coclin wrote:
Hi Rich,
Yes, we did put out a version for public comment in February. We took those comments back along with others that surfaced during the re-review process and have come out with this document. So technically this is not another review period. Having said that, we never say no to any comments which the group feels need to be addressed.

Dean

From: Jody Cloutier [mailto:jodycl at microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:00 PM
To: Ben Wilson; richard.smith at comodo.com<mailto:richard.smith at comodo.com>; Dean Coclin; 'CABFPub'
Cc: codesigning at cabforum.org<mailto:codesigning at cabforum.org>
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] [cabfc_s] Code Signing Baseline Requirements

What is the purpose of the additional review period? Are we accepting modifications during this timeframe?

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:58 AM
To: richard.smith at comodo.com<mailto:richard.smith at comodo.com>; 'Dean Coclin' <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>>; 'CABFPub' <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Cc: codesigning at cabforum.org<mailto:codesigning at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [cabfc_s] Code Signing Baseline Requirements

I think we've already done that, unless you're suggesting that we go out for another 30-day review period.  It would be good to map out proposed dates when everything is supposed to occur.

From: codesigning-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:codesigning-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:codesigning-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Rich Smith
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:48 AM
To: 'Dean Coclin' <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>>; 'CABFPub' <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Cc: codesigning at cabforum.org<mailto:codesigning at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfc_s] [cabfpub] Code Signing Baseline Requirements

Dean said:
The Working Group would like to have the Forum approve these Baseline Requirements by ballot which will be put forth at the next teleconference. Discussion will start at that time, followed by a formal vote.

Dean, as this is an entirely new full set of guidelines, this seems fast for a ballot and vote.  With the BRs as I recall, we circulated to the public and had, I believe, a 30 day public comment period, after which time it was brought back in house to address any issues before being then proposed for final ballot review and approval.  Shouldn't we do the same here?

-Rich

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Dean Coclin
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:31 PM
To: CABFPub
Cc: codesigning at cabforum.org<mailto:codesigning at cabforum.org>
Subject: [cabfpub] Code Signing Baseline Requirements

The Code Signing Working Group of the CA/Browser Forum is pleased to announce the release of the final version of the Code Signing Baseline Requirements. The Working Group has been meeting over the last 2 years to develop and bring this topic to the Forum for approval.

The Working Group would like to have the Forum approve these Baseline Requirements by ballot which will be put forth at the next teleconference. Discussion will start at that time, followed by a formal vote.

This Working Group was chartered by the Forum at the Mozilla face to face meeting in February 2013 and has brought together forum members and outside participants to craft a document which we believe will help improve the security of the ecosystem. Forum members in the working group include: Comodo, Digicert, Entrust, ETSI, Federal PKI, Firmaprofessional,  Globalsign, Izenpe, Microsoft, Starcom, SwissSign, Symantec, Trend Micro, WoSign as well as non-members: Cacert, Intarsys, OTA, Richter, and Travelport.

The stated goal of the group was to: "Create a set of baseline requirements for code signing that will reduce the incidence of signed malware". We strived to work on 3 sub goals, which are by no means 100% solved. However we feel that the document reflects progress towards these goals which were:

1.       Minimize private key theft by moving toward more secure key storage (protection of private keys)

2.       Baseline authentication and vetting procedures for all parties

3.       Information sharing (notification/revocation) for fraud detection. This piece was moved to the Information Sharing Working Group

We ask all members to review the document and provide feedback for discussion to the forum. The guidelines would go into effect one year after forum approval.

Thanks,

Dean Coclin and Jeremy Rowley

on behalf of the
Code Signing Working Group

________________________________

This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150818/7621c143/attachment-0003.html>