[cabfpub] Updates to Microsoft SHA-1 deprecation

Rick Andrews Rick_Andrews at symantec.com
Mon Mar 23 12:45:41 MST 2015


Thanks, Anoosh. Here's another item that we're struggling with, and we'd love to get your assistance.

Microsoft initially said that SHA-1 timestamping would be EOLed at the end of 2015 (we currently run two such services).  Microsoft later said it was going to be allowed after 2016.  Can you clarify this?  The messaging seem inconsistent.  We're working to stand up a SHA-256 TSA but if all SHA1 timestamps cannot be used after the end of this year it makes our transition a bit more urgent.

And I'm sure you realize that we can't just simply move to a SHA-256 TSA right now because code with those timestamps can't be used on older Windows versions. So we'd like to understand if you have deadlines for when Windows will stop accepting

-          Code signed with a SHA-1 CS cert and a SHA-1 timestamp

-          Code signed with a SHA-2 CS cert and a SHA-1 timestamp
And if it will depend on the validity end date of the CS cert, please explain.

-Rick


From: Anoosh Saboori [mailto:ansaboor at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:35 PM
To: Rick Andrews; Erwann Abalea; public at cabforum.org
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Updates to Microsoft SHA-1 deprecation

I am consolidating the feedbacks and get back to you shortly.

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Rick Andrews
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 10:52 AM
To: Erwann Abalea; public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Updates to Microsoft SHA-1 deprecation

Thanks, Erwann. I missed that.

Two questions for Anoosh:

1)      What's the rationale for 1/1/2016? I'm almost certain that Tom said it wouldn't be required until 1/1/2017.

2)      Echoing Bruce's comment, is there any way that you can pull all the details together in a more understandable format? IMO, I shouldn't have to read through all 5 pages of comments to see what the policy is. It's great that Microsoft accepts comments (and answers them!) but if someone posts a question it probably means that the policy statement is lacking, and should be updated.

-Rick

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Erwann Abalea
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:05 AM
To: public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Updates to Microsoft SHA-1 deprecation

http://blogs.technet.com/b/pki/archive/2013/11/12/sha1-deprecation-policy.aspx#pi47623=2

CRLs will be SHA2-signed by 01/01/2016. See responses by "Amerk [MSFT]".



--

Erwann ABALEA


Le 23/03/2015 16:57, Rick Andrews a écrit :
Bruce,

At the Beijing meeting, Tom Albertson said that by 1/1/2017, even CRLs for SHA-1 roots had to be signed with SHA-2.

Anoosh, I assume that's still Microsoft's policy.

-Rick

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Morton
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:40 AM
To: Anoosh Saboori
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Updates to Microsoft SHA-1 deprecation

Hi Anoosh,

I might be the only one, but I am a little confused regarding the Windows hashing requirements. It would be great if there was a matrix to show/confirm your requirements per Windows version.

I am thinking that the following must be covered:


*         SSL certificates

*         Code Signing certificates

*         S/MIME certificates

*         Time-stamping certificates

*         OCSP signing certificates

*         Code signing signatures

*         Time-stamp signatures

*         CRL signatures

*         OCSP signatures

*         there must be more ...

An issue that I want to understand is, since some certificates can be SHA-1, can the CRL/OCSP response be signed with a SHA-1 certificate? Can the signature be SHA-1? We would need to understand this for both root and issuing CAs.

If we can nail this down, then it will be easier to draft a spec for our implementation teams.

Thanks, Bruce.

From: Anoosh Saboori [mailto:ansaboor at microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:29 PM
To: Bruce Morton
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Updates to Microsoft SHA-1 deprecation

Windows enforcement dates (i.e., date at which SHA-1 certificates will be rejected by Windows) only apply to SSL and code signing certificates. All other types of certificates will be rejected on Windows side when SHA-1 pre-image attacks are deemed feasible by Microsoft.

Anoosh


From: Bruce Morton [mailto:bruce.morton at entrust.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 6:47 PM
To: Anoosh Saboori
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Updates to Microsoft SHA-1 deprecation

Hi Anoosh,

Thank you for the update.

I don't think the policy for S/MIME certificates has been stated. I see some discussion in the comments. Could you also advise how the SHA-1 deprecation policy applies to S/MIME certificates.

Thanks, Bruce.

On Mar 20, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Anoosh Saboori <ansaboor at microsoft.com<mailto:ansaboor at microsoft.com>> wrote:
Hello,

I would like to inform you that Microsoft has made update to its SHA-1 deprecation policy to accommodate developers targeting Vista/Server 2008. Please see below.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/pki/archive/2013/11/12/sha1-deprecation-policy.aspx

Anoosh

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public




_______________________________________________

Public mailing list

Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>

https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150323/fddbc773/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Public mailing list