[cabfpub] EV Guidelines §14.2 delegation of functions to RAs etc.

Wed Aug 24 16:59:16 UTC 2016

Adriano,

It might be useful if you could explain more why you believe the text
disagrees with Kirk, Peter and I. The goal is not to leave these things up
to interpretation, and so if you believe a plain reading of the text
supports an alternative understanding different from what we said,
understanding why you believe that will be quite important.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Adriano Santoni <
adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it> wrote:

> Kirk,
>
> thank you for your contribute.
>
> If the "correct interpretation" of the EVGL is actually the one you give
> below, than it makes sense.
>
> But I see that even you are expressing some uncertanty ("looks like"...
> "in my opinion" ...) so I really would like to understand whether your
> interpretation is shared by most CA members, as I hope.
>
> If your intepretation is correct, I think that the EVGLs are worth
> improving, for better clarity.
>
> On the other hand, the notion that an Enterprise RA can only authorize
> issuance of EV certs for sub-domains seems weird to me.
> I wonder how many EV certificates exist for subdomains of a company's main
> domain.... I suppose not many?
>
> Adriano
>
>
>
> Il 17/08/2016 18:56, Kirk Hall ha scritto:
>
> Adriano, I may not be understanding your original question -- but here is
> another possible answer.
>
>
>
> If Company A applies for an EV cert for foo.com, the CA will do an EV
> vetting for the *organization* (Company A) and then for the *domain* (
> foo.com).  Under EVGL 14.2, it looks like Company A can then ask to be
> designated as an Enterprise RA - but only for the confirmed domain foo.com
> -- and then get certs for third level and higher domains that end in
> foo.com.  But Company A has not proven ownership or control of any other
> domains, such as bar.com, so is not an Enterprise RA for any other
> domains.
>
>
>
> Now suppose Company A comes back to the RA and asks for a cert for bar.com.
> In my opinion, the CA is not required to re-do EV *organization*
> validation for Company A again -- it can rely on the earlier EV
> organization validation (for the full 13 month period), so long as the CA
> is certain it is really dealing with Company A.  But it must do EV
> validation of bar.com to prove it is owned or controlled by Company A.
> Once that has been done, Company A could ask to be designated as an
> Enterprise RA for bar.com also.  But there is no real connection between
> the status of foo.com versus bar.com, other than Company A may only have
> to go through a single EV *organization* vetting.
>
>
>
> Is that responsive to your original question?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen
> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 9:19 AM
> To: Adriano Santoni <adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it>
> <adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it>
> Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org> <public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] EV Guidelines §14.2 delegation of functions to RAs
> etc.
>
>
>
> I don’t think this is a very high bar.  It would seem the following
> process would work:
>
>
>
> 1) Customer requests EV Enterprise RA privileges for example.com,
> example.net, corp.example.org, example.biz, …
>
>
>
> 2) CA follows EV issuance procedures and issues a single EV certificate
> that has all the base domains in it.  This certificate could have a
> CA-defined critical extension marking it an “Enterprise RA EV” certificate
> or some such to prevent it from being used on a server.  I think it could
> even have CA-generated key pair where the CA simply threw away the private
> key after generation.
>
>
>
> 3) If the customer wants new domains, the CA issues a new “Enterprise RA
> EV” certificate using the same process.  There does not appear to be a
> requirement that all domains be in a single certificate, so it could just
> be the new domains.
>
>
>
> I think this would meet all the requirements that are set out.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Adriano Santoni <
> adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Ok,. but what is (was) the ratio for that constraint?
>
> >
>
> > Assume the following:
>
> >
>
> > 1) A certain company (say "ACME Corp") owns/controls several 2nd level
> domains (two or more).
>
> >
>
> > 2) That company wants EV certificates, from a certain CA, for two or
> more of those domains, or possibly all of them.
>
> >
>
> > 3) The same company would like to be authorized as an Enterprise RA by
> the said CA.
>
> >
>
> > Now assume that the said CA, first of all, verifies (with _positive
> result_) that *all* of those domains are actually owned/controlled by ACME.
>
> >
>
> > Next, the CA verifies that all requirements for issuing the first EV
> certificate (for any one of those domains) are met, and therefore issues
> the first EV certificate.
>
> >
>
> > At this point, why should ACME not be allowed to act as an Enterprise RA
> and thus obtain by themselves (in compliance with all applicable reqs. for
> Enterprise RAs) the desired EV certificates for the remaining 2nd level
> domains ?
>
> >
>
> > What would be the implied risk of allowing that?
>
> > Adriano
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Il 04/08/2016 23:24, Ryan Sleevi ha scritto:
>
> >> You're saying the original certificate is xxx.example, and the new
> certificate is for xxx.example and yyy.example?
>
> >>
>
> >> No, it would not be appropriate, because yyy.example was not "contained
> within the domain of the original EV certificate"
>
> >>
>
> >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Adriano Santoni <
> adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it> wrote:
>
> >> All,
>
> >>
>
> >> I have a doubt regarding §14.2 of EV guidelines, and particularly
> §14.2.2 (Enterprise RAs) that reads:
>
> >>
>
> >> "The CA MAY contractually authorize the Subject of a specified Valid EV
> Certificate to perform the RA function and authorize the CA to issue
> additional EV Certificates at third and higher domain levels that are
> contained within the domain of the original EV Certificate (also known as
> an Enterprise EV Certificate). In such case, the Subject SHALL be
> considered an Enterprise RA, and the following requirements SHALL apply:
> ..."
>
> >> Now, let's assume that a certain company owns/controls two or more
> domains, say xxx.com and yyy.net, and that the "original EV Certificate"
> (quoted from above) was issued by the CA for any one of those domains (say
> xxx.com): under these conditions, would it be okay to authorize that
> company to act as an Enterprise RA for the remaining 2nd-level domains that
> it owns/controls ?
>
> >>
>
> >> Based on §14.2.2, it seems not.
>
> >>
>
> >> Adriano
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> >> Public mailing list
>
> >> Public at cabforum.org
>
> >> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Cordiali saluti,
>
> >
>
> > Adriano Santoni
>
> > ACTALIS S.p.A.
>
> > (Aruba Group)
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Public mailing list
>
> > Public at cabforum.org
>
> > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Public mailing list
>
> Public at cabforum.org
>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
> --
>
> Cordiali saluti,
>
> Adriano Santoni
> ACTALIS S.p.A.
> (Aruba Group)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160824/bf8188dc/attachment-0003.html>