[cabfpub] Suggestion to amend BR Section7.1.4.2.2d/e RE: EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520
Erwann Abalea
Erwann.Abalea at docusign.com
Fri Jul 15 13:03:47 MST 2016
Bonsoir,
About small countries that haven’t set up any state or province.
X.520 definition for the stateOrProvinceName attribute is (from 201210 edition):
The State or Province Name attribute type specifies a state or province. When used as a component of a directory name, it identifies a geographical subdivision in which the named object is physically located or with which it is associated in some other important way.
« Geographical subdivision » can mean anything. Maybe some would disagree, but I think that a CA can stretch it pretty easily while respecting the BRs.
If you want to follow the intent of the « province », since this latin-based word designates an administrative subdivision, it can even be a city or a village, and doesn’t necessarily mean a State in the US way. All the countries listed in Note 2 have cities.
About the uniqueness of an organizationName at a country level.
OV/IV certificates are not meant to unambiguously identify the subject named in the certificate. That role is left for EV certificates.
For example, in an IV certificate, there can be more than one individuals named John Malkovich, living in the same country, same province, same city. Only one of them will obviously be able to have the johnmalkoti.ch<http://johnmalkoti.ch> domain, if it exists (it doesn’t).
Talking about OV certificates, even if it’s not possible to have 2 companies with the same name in the same jurisdiction, it’s possible to have 2 certificates having the same name representing 2 different entities. For example « C=UT, ST=MyVillage, O=XXXX », if XXXX is both a company and a brand (DBA).
Combine OV and IV, and « C=UT, ST=MyVillage, O=XXXX » can represent 3 different things, if XXXX is also the full name of an individual and the CA chooses to place this full name in the O field instead of GN/SN. (for a country named Utopia)
The rule for an OV/IV is something like « if you can provide evidence of the claimed identity, it’s good ».
Again, if you want to disambiguate claimed identities, you’re free to add other attributes, or provide an EV certificate.
I don’t support the proposed BR changes, they only add complexity without any real benefit.
Looking at the example certificates:
* certificate 1 is not problematic; if you want a less cluttered certificate, go for a DV; wether VA is really a country or not is left as an exercise (it’s a territory for me, but I’m not so difficult)
* certificate 2 is not wrong per se; Taichung City being a geographical subdivision of Taiwan, an administrative division, and a city, it’s not wrong to have Taichung in both the ST and L attributes — second example is « ST=Taiwan, L=Kaohsiung »; Taiwan being a province of the Taiwan country, and Kaohsiung being a city, it’s not wrong
* I think certificate 3 is also fine; Taiwan Province is a province of the country Taiwan (just like Fujian Province is also such a province), and Taipei is a locality; wether the real name is Taipei or Taipei City is another remark
You’re explaining your proposals by using « no need to put (some information) », or « registered in (somewhere) », but it’s not relevant here. The fact that a company is registered in a city shouldn’t prevent the CA from setting the postalCode or streetAddress attributes (it’s not wrong to set these attributes). And if you want to unambiguously identify the company « ABC Store » registered in Nantou County from the « ABC Store » registered in Taipei City, again, use an EV, that’s what they’re here for. This can raise some legitimate questions and necessary clarifications about the real content and hierarchy of jurisdiction*Name attributes, and it’s OK.
And forget about X.521, we’re not using it here, there’s no DIT, no object classes. We’re using X.509 certificates outside of the Big X.500 Directory, and not as an attribute of this Directory (it can be both).
Cordialement,
Erwann Abalea
Le 14 juil. 2016 à 11:51, 陳立群 <realsky at cht.com.tw<mailto:realsky at cht.com.tw>> a écrit :
I did thank for Ben’ record of July 1’s Policy Review Working Group Call and Peter’s asking .
Because there are two issues, I modify the subject to “Suggestion to amend BR Section7.1.4.2.2d/e”.
And left the second issue about EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520, RFC 5280 in RE: [cabfpub] EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520
To prevent presentation layout problem , I attached word and pdf version as attached file, and past as below for further discussion.
Amend of SSL BR section 7.1.4.2.2 d & e
Statement of intent:
In SSL BR section 7.1.4.2.2 d & e, either localityName or stateOrProvinceName is required for OV and IV SSL Certificates. As CABF Bugzilla – Bug#2 https://bugzilla.cabforum.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2 , We amend section 7.1.4.2.2 d & e to solve below situations:
(1). For small countries/jurisdictions, if they do not set up any state or province. Some CAs misplaced absence province or state name.
(2). The organizationName is already unique at the country level.
If the subject:organizationName and subject:countryName fields are present and the country/jurisdiction specified by the subject:countryName field has a centralized registry for that kind of organizations so that the organization name specified by the subject:organizationName field is "unique" in the entire country/jurisdiction. Those centralized registry databases are QGIS(Qualified Government Information Source, ) or QTIS(Qualified Government Tax Information Source) , and government law keep the organizations’ names are unique. [Note 1]
(3).In EU, "We found it is not suitable to enforce the CA to insert locality(L) or stateOrProvinceName(ST) into the subject DN in small country" remains still open as it is the same in other EU countries too. Please see https://portal.etsi.org//TBSiteMap/ESI/ESIActivities.aspx<https://portal.etsi.org/TBSiteMap/ESI/ESIActivities.aspx>
a. ETSI EN 319 412-1 "Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Certificate Profiles; Part 1: Overview and common data structures".
b. ETSI EN 319 412-3 "Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Certificate Profiles; Part 3: Certificate profile for certificates issued to legal persons".
C.319 412-4 v1.1.1: Certificate profile for web site certificates issued to organisations
The minimal set of Subject info for legal person in Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Certificate Profiles; Part 3: Certificate profile for certificates issued to legal persons
4.2.1 Subject
The subject field shall include at least the following attributes as specified in Recommendation ITU-T X.520 [1]:
• countryName;
• organizationName;
• organizationIdentifier; and
• commonName.
(4) There will be the possibilities of Distinguished Name collisions for different entities following current BR.
Table: Proposed versions:
SSL BR V1.3.4
Proposed versions
7.1.4.2.2 Subject Distinguished Name Fields
d. Certificate Field: subject:localityName (OID: 2.5.4.7)
Required if the subject:organizationName field is present and the subject:stateOrProvinceName field is absent.
Optional if: (a) the subject:organizationName and subject:stateOrProvinceName fields are present.
e. Certificate Field: subject:stateOrProvinceName (OID: 2.5.4.8)
Required if the subject:organizationName field is present and subject:localityName field is absent.
Optional if subject:organizationName and subject:localityName fields are present.
1. Dr. Ben Wilson of DigiCert’s version
7.1.4.2.2 Subject Distinguished Name Fields
d.Certificate Field: subject:localityName (OID: 2.5.4.7)
Required if the subject:organizationName field is present and the subject:stateOrProvinceName field is absent.
Optional if: (a) the subject:organizationName and subject:stateOrProvinceName fields are present, or (b) if the country name provided under subsection g. is Taiwan (TW), Singapore (SG)[Note 2], etc..
e.Certificate Field:subject:stateOrProvinceName (OID: 2.5.4.8)
Required if the subject:organizationName field is present and subject:localityName field is absent.
Optional if: (a) subject:organizationName and subject:localityName fields are present, or (b) if the country name provided under subsection g. is Taiwan (TW), Singapore (SG), etc..
2. Dr. Wen-Cheng Wang of Chunghwa Telecom’s Version
7.1.4.2.2 Subject Distinguished Name Fields
d. Certificate Field: subject:localityName (OID: 2.5.4.7)
Required if the subject:organizationName field is present and the subject:stateOrProvinceName field is absent.
Optional if: (a) the subject:organizationName and subject:stateOrProvinceName fields are present, or (b) if the subject:organizationName and subject:countryName fields are present and the country/jurisdiction specified by the subject:countryName field has a centralized registry for that kind of organizations so that the organization name specified by the subject:organizationName field is "unique" in the entire country/jurisdiction.
Normally, situation (b) may exist in small countries/jurisdictions such as Singapore (SG), Taiwan (TW), etc.
e. Certificate Field: subject:stateOrProvinceName (OID: 2.5.4.8)
Required if the subject:organizationName field is present and subject:localityName field is absent.
Optional if: (a) the subject:organizationName and subject:stateOrProvinceName fields are present, or (b) if the subject:organizationName and subject:countryName fields are present and the country/jurisdiction specified by the subject:countryName field has a centralized registry for that kind of organizations so that the organization name specified by the subject:organizationName field is "unique" in the entire country/jurisdiction.
Normally, situation (b) may exist in small countries/jurisdictions such as Singapore (SG), Taiwan (TW), etc.
Some problems if we don’t amend SSL BR and soultions:
1. For a Symantec OV SSL Certificate that I found in https://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/MV_Home.html (with error message by browser for the FQDN in URL is not matched the Subject Alternative Name, *.catholica.va and catholica.va, in this SSL certificate)or you can see it in
https://crt.sh/?q=98+ef+2b+4c+43+39+ae+04+3b+bd+55+08+59+b2+b7+b4+ee+76+cb+af
Its Subject DN is
commonName=*.catholica.va
organizationName=Department of Telecommunications
localityName=Vatican City
stateOrProvinceName=Vatican City State
countryName =VA
The subject DN should be
commonName=*.catholica.va
organizationName=Department of Telecommunications
countryName =VA
It is enough to identify the domain name owner in Vatican.
Note that from http://www.upu.int/fileadmin/documentsFiles/activities/addressingUnit/vatEn.pdf given by Peter Brown of Amazon
The Vatican uses an address format identical to that of Italy, except the province abbreviation, which is not used in the Vatican.
2. A wildcard SSL certificate signed by GlobalSign at https://ebank.cotabank.com.tw/eBank/,
Its Subject DN is
CN = *.cotabank.com.tw<http://cotabank.com.tw/>
O = COTA Commercial Bank
OU = ITDs
L = Taichung
S = Taichung
C = TW
But there is No Taichung Province or Taichung State in Taiwan, only Taichung city in Taiwan.
I also mail to Doug of GlobalSign for below example,
Kaohsiung city is also a special municipality as Taichung city. For a wildcard SSL Certificate for a bank as in https://accessible.bok.com.tw/
Its Subject DN is
CN = *.bok.com.tw<http://bok.com.tw/>
O = BANK OF KAOHSIUNG CO., LTD.
OU = MIS Dept.
L = Kaohsiung
S = Taiwan
C = TW
The rule by GlobalSign vetting team is not the same as in cotabank in Taichung city for BANK OF KAOHSIUNG CO., LTD. in Kaohsiung city.
Please also see the Taichung City Government English webpages in
http://eng.taichung.gov.tw/mp.aspx?mp=1 and Kaohsiung City Government English webpages in
http://www.kcg.gov.tw/EN/Index.aspx
These two city governments called them “City” not province. They are special municipalities, it is no need to put S=Taiwan.
We think below DN should be suitable:
CN = *.cotabank.com.tw<http://cotabank.com.tw/>
O = COTA Commercial Bank
OU = ITDs
C = TW
CN = *.bok.com.tw<http://bok.com.tw/>
O = BANK OF KAOHSIUNG CO., LTD.
OU = MIS Dept.
C = TW
They can be simple and clear identify *.bok.com.tw<http://bok.com.tw/>’ and COTA Commercial Bank’s organization DNs follow our country’s law and x.520.
3. Another case is as https://www.ecover.com.tw/ issued by Comodo,
CN = www.ecover.com.tw<http://www.ecover.com.tw/>
OU = GlobalTrustSSLPro
OU = Provided by Global Digital Inc.
OU = MIS Dept
O = SOUTH CHINA INSURANCE CO., LTD.
STREET = 5F,No.560,Sec. 4,Chung Hsiao E Rd.,Taipei,Taiwan
L = Taipei
S = Taiwan
PostalCode = 110
C = TW
As Taipei City is a Municipality, we should not put S=Taiwan. Also for its address, you can see other example such as http://www.tcc.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=BBF5C83DDCCEE939 of Taipei City Council:
Copyright ©2013 Taipei City Council
No.507, Sec. 4, Ren-ai Rd., Xinyi Dist., Taipei City 110, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
TEL:(02)2729-7708<tel:(02)2729-7708>
Last Updated: 2016-05-16
No need to put Taiwan Province.
The DN follows the Taiwan’s company act and current BR should be
CN = www.ecover.com.tw<http://www.ecover.com.tw/>
OU = GlobalTrustSSLPro
OU = Provided by Global Digital Inc.
OU = MIS Dept
O = SOUTH CHINA INSURANCE CO., LTD.
STREET = 5F,No.560,Sec. 4,Chung Hsiao E Rd., Taipei City ,Taiwan
L = Taipei City
PostalCode = 110
C = TW
But it may misinterpretate SOUTH CHINA INSURANCE CO., LTD as registered in Taipei City. So we suggest to modify SSL BR and use below DN
CN = www.ecover.com.tw<http://www.ecover.com.tw/>
OU = GlobalTrustSSLPro
OU = Provided by Global Digital Inc.
OU = MIS Dept
O = SOUTH CHINA INSURANCE CO., LTD.
STREET = 5F,No.560,Sec. 4,Chung Hsiao E Rd., Taipei City ,Taiwan
PostalCode = 110
C = TW
Because from Note1, according Taiwan’s Company Act, the company name must be unique for the whole country. So we can omit the L = Taipei City. Also Taipei City appears in the Street field.
4. On the other hand, in Taiwan, we have small businesses (such as stores, or as Business Entities as in EVGL) which is established and registered according to our Business Registration Act(http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0080004, See Article 28). In Taiwan, small businesses is registered in municipal level. The Business Registration Law requires that the name of the small business must be unique with the municipality (that will be a city or a county) where it is registered.
For example, there might be a small business named "ABC Store" registered in Taipei City, while there might be another "ABC Store" registered in NantouCounty.
Therefore, the suitable subject DN for these two small businesses will be “
CN=ABC Store’s FQDN
O=ABC Store
L=Taipei City
C=TW
and
CN=ABC Store’s FQDN
O=ABC Store
L=Nantou County
C=TW
respectively.
5. In X.520 or within a CA, A CA has to let different entities to have different Distinguished Name, different serial numbers and different key pairs. It is fundamental. For IV SSL certificate or citizen certificates, we can add unique serial number in Subject Distinguished Names to two different entities have the same names. (Peter Brown of Amazon in the discussion said EV SSL certificates solve the problem, but don’t forget that EV SSL Certificates will not be issued to individuals, only be issued to Private Organization, Government Entities, Business entities and non-profit international organizations.)
For OV SSL certificates, we have explained that there are some other small countries or jurisdictions where stateOrProvinceName is not available and where companies is registered in the country level.
In such situations, we do not think it is suitable to enforce the CA to insert locality(L) or stateOrProvinceName(ST) into the subject DN.
Peter tended to interpret the current BR that the localityName and stateOrProvinceName attributes as identifying the subject’s address of existence or operation. However, to enforce this kind of interpretation and require the Subject DN must at least contain either the localityName and stateOrProvinceName attributes may cause problem in some situations as Dr. Wen-Cheng Wang’s email before, especially in some small country where organizations are allowed to be registered at country-level.
For example, in Taiwan, a corporation can be registered at country-level but can also be register at city/county-level. If there is a country-level corporation named “Farmer’s Association” of which physical address is located in Taipei City, with current Subject DN rule of BR, its Subject DN will be “C=TW, L=Taipei City, O=Farmer’s Association”. However, if there is also a city/county-level “Farmer’s Association” in Taipei City, its Subject DN will also be “C=TW, L=Taipei City, O=Farmer’s Association”. How do you distinguish them by DN?
We do not understand why we need to enforce require the Subject DN must at least contain either the localityName and stateOrProvinceName attributes if the registered organizational name of a country-level corporation/organization is already guaranteed to be unique under the country name?
The following diagram is taken from Annex B of ITU-T X.521 (Suggested name form and Directory information tree structures). Please note path 1 -> 3, it suggests that there is no need to include a Locality attribute in the directory name of a country-level organization.
<image001.jpg>
Several CAs have issued certificates with countryName = TW where other subject attributes are incorrectly set. That’s because those CA don’t not consider the real situation, so they try to fill some attributes to fill the state=Taiwan or even state=Taichung.
Other Q & A
1. In Bugzilla(CABF Bugzilla – Bug#2 https://bugzilla.cabforum.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2) , Dimitris Zacharopoulos suggested that
There are some countries that have a centralized registry for commercial companies which means that company names are "unique" in the entire country.
The BR could address this issue in Section 7.1.4.2.2d/e and provide an exception for these cases. However, the CA's qualified auditors should verify that there is a single company naming registry in the entire country which forces uniqueness of company names. The Root programs could request a letter from the CA's auditors to verify this situation that would enable the exception.
Ans: I think the CA's qualified auditors will be glad to verify that there is a single company naming registry in the entire country which forces uniqueness of company names and offer the letter under request of Browser Root Certificate Program. Also I have showed the URL of Taiwan’s company act. Taiwan’s National Development Council asked Government PKI’s qualified auditors to join the F2F Meeting 39 in Redmond. Li-Chun CHEN has helped David of KPMG, Taiwan to join.
Below is website of Company Registration Database:
http://gcis.nat.gov.tw/mainNew/classNAction.do?method=list&pkGcisClassN=4,website of Importer registration system:https://fbfh.trade.gov.tw/rich/text/indexfbOL.asp<http://fbfh.trade.gov.tw/rich/text/indexfbOL.asp>
2. In CA/B Forum meeting of July 7th, Kirk asked if a general rule can be written rather than writing up a list of specific countries. Ben said that had not been discussed.
Ans: What about discussion like the minimal set of Subject info for legal person in Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Certificate Profiles; Part 3: Certificate profile for certificates issued to legal persons? Or choose the edition from Ben or Wen-Cheng.
3. In certificate Policy working Group, Ben offer discussion records between Peter Brown and Li-Chun CHEN as
https://www.mail-archive.com/public@cabforum.org/msg01333.html
Note that in RFC 3739 there are Qualified Certificates Profiles, In section 2.4. Uniqueness of names:
Distinguished name is originally defined in X.501 [X.501] as a
representation of a directory name, defined as a construct that
identifies a particular object from among a set of all objects. The
distinguished name MUST be unique for each subject entity certified
by the one CA as defined by the issuer name field, for the whole life
time of the CA.
For Taiwan’s Government PKI, there is a certificate and CRL profile as
http://grca.nat.gov.tw/download/GPKI_Cert_and_CRL_Profiles_v2.0.pdf, we have this document around 14 years. Only that it is written in Tradition Chinese, not English. So we don’t think there are some issues that Peter said, like “For end-entity certificates in the WebPKI, as implemented, there is no requirement that different entities have different Subject values.”
4. Doug Beattie said in Validation Working Group : I still think it would be a good idea to enumerate the entire list of Country codes where both stateOrProvinceName and localityName can be omitted so there is no confusion and compliance can be monitored.
5.
Ans: I list all the Country Codes as in Note 2. But we have to consider it seems that some are not ISO 3166-1 code, some is ISO 3166-2 code. The original source is from https://www.drupal.org/node/636464, and I check by web sites such as Wikipedia, those government sites, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166and http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/diverse/doc/ISO_3166.html. We hope more volunteers provide comments and advices.
[Note 1]: In Taiwan, according our Company Act, the company name must be unique for the whole country. Furthermore, Taiwan’s Company Act requires the company to register its business location which will be some city or county.
In http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0080001,
Company Act article 18 ,
No company may use a corporate name which is identical with that of another company. Where the corporate names of two companies contain any marks or identifying words respectively that may distinguish the different categories of business of the two companies, such corporate names shall not be considered identical with each other.
A company may conduct any business that is not prohibited or restricted by the laws and regulations, except for those requiring special approvals which shall be explicitly described in the Articles of Incorporation of the company.
Any category of business to be conducted by a company shall, when making the registration thereof, be identified with the Category Code applicable to the said business category as assigned in the Table of Categories of Businesses by the central competent authority. For a company which has already been registered, and the category of business conducted by it is registered with descriptive words, then, such descriptive words shall be replaced with the applicable Category Code as assigned in the foregoing Table, while applying for alteration of the entries of existing company registration record.
A company shall not use a name which tends to mislead the public to associate it with the name of a government agency or a public welfare organization, or has an implication of offending against public order or good customs.
Before proceeding to the company incorporation registration procedure, a company shall first apply for approval and reservation, for a specific period of time, of its corporate name and the scope of its business. Rules for examination and approval of such application shall be prescribed by the central competent authority.
In Taiwan, since the company name must be unique for the whole country, the subject DN for a company, such as Chunghwa Telecom, should look like
"C=TW, O=Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd
This subject DN already uniquely identifies the company.
There is no necessary to add RDNs such as locality(L), or stateOrProvinceName(ST), Address (optional in BR) into the subject DN.
If we specify the subject DN as "C=TW, L=Taipei City, O=Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd.", that will mean it is a company registered in Taipei City. This will not conform to our Company Law because companies in Taiwan is registered in the country level not in the municipal level.
[Note 2]:
Table: Example of small countries/jurisdictions
ISO<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ISO> 3166 country code<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/country_code>
Bouvet Island<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bouvet_Island>
BV
British Virgin Islands
VG
Christmas Island
CX
Falkland Islands
FK
Faroe Islands
FO
French Guiana
GF
Gibraltar
GI<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:GI>
Guadeloupe
GP
Guam
GU
Guernsey
GG
Isle of Man
IM
Jersey
JE
Lebanon
LB
Macedonia
MK
Martinique
MQ
Mayotte
YT
Montenegro
ME
Netherlands Antilles
AN
Niue
NU
Norfolk Island
NF
Palestinian Territory
PS
Pitcairn
PN
Reunion
RE
Serbia
RS
Singapore
SG
Slovenia
SVN
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
GS
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
SJ
Taiwan
TW
Vatican
VA
Western Sahara
EH
Sincerely Yours,
Li-Chun CHEN
Deputy Senior Engineer
CISSP, CISA, CISM, PMP,
Information & Communication Security Dept.
Data Communication Business Group
Chunghwa Telecom Co. Ltd.
realsky at cht.com.tw<mailto:realsky at cht.com.tw>
+886-2-2344-4820#4025
From: Ben Wilson [mailto:ben.wilson at digicert.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 2:40 AM
To: Erwann Abalea; 陳立群
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520
To help this discussion along, here is a transcript of yesterday’s Policy Review Working Group meeting:
Li-Chun: I would like to address the Subject Name issue and a new issue, which is the proprietary OID of Microsoft for jurisdiction of incorporation. We feel we need to prepare a proposal to modify the EV Guidelines and allow CAs to modify their CPSs and internal programs to accommodate a non-proprietary OID. And then on the first issue, maybe we can find more examples, such as in Europe, of small countries with the subject name issue. I don’t know why browsers reject the ballot. I think that most of the CAs agree with the effort.
Peter: The EV OIDs for jurisdiction were created by Microsoft. Microsoft allocated those OIDs out of their namespace to the EV program, correct?
Li-Chun: But in the EV Guidelines we said we are referencing with X.520. They are just excluding the BRs, such as country OID, state or province OID, and locality OID. The BRs are accurate. Our position is that those OIDs are not just for physical address. It’s also about jurisdiction, and X.520 is for the way we support the Distinguished Name. We cannot sort different entities with the same Distinguished Name. If you sync the register with the protocol and for the hierarchical structure. Also, for example in RFC 3739 there are Qualified Certificates Profiles. So there will be the serial number for individuals or for natural person and they can use it with an IV certificate, and also we use the serial number in the Subject Distinguished Name for our citizen certificate in Taiwan. We just need to offer to better, one is for relief the registration for subject’s state or province and the locality for small countries, as we discussed previously.
Another is the proprietary Microsoft OID. The BRs state that for the state, province and locality OID. And we will offer this in the mailing list in the future in two weeks.
Peter: You’ve raised several good topics. First, regarding what you’ve raised as the proprietary Microsoft OIDs, as I understand it, the definition of a Subject Distinguished Name is a sequence of attributes of any type. X.520 lists some attribute types, but it is not an exclusive set. Any organization can allocate new attribute types. As part of the development of the EV specification, several new attribute types were defined. This is similar to what countries do when they develop new attribute types for their certificates, which we’ve seen with things like electronic IDs in Europe, etc. I am not familiar with the Taiwanese electronic ID standard, but it may use OIDs from its arc as well. The question in the EV Guidelines that I think is confusing, which I’d like to see if we could clarify, are those OIDs from Microsoft where the content definition in them, that is the ASN.1 structure was defined as a reference to the data type that includes the phrase X.520, which is from RFC 5280. It is not a reference to X.520 itself. Instead RFC 5280 uses the term X.520 itself. So I can see how it is confusing. Erwan posted a revision to the mailing list a version that did not use that term. Did Erwan’s email make more sense? Should we propose a ballot that uses that terminology instead?
Li-Chun: We have seen that email, but we think it is a proprietary OID. We suggest that we use the OIDs in the Baseline Requirements and in X.520, country, state and locality.
Peter: I believe that all of the browsers have coded those other OIDs at this point. So it would not be an EV certificate and the browsers would not accept it as such without those OIDs that are underneath the Microsoft OID arc.
Li-Chun: We think the browsers only put those OIDs printable chain in to appear when we click on the EV certificate’s detailed information. So, those efforts will be in CAs’ program to change proprietary OID to an X.520 OID. I think they will not involve browsers. I think we can discuss this topic further on the mailing list.
Peter: Just to make sure I understand what you’re saying, your objection is to the inclusion of OIDs that are not covered in the X.520 document in the CA/B Forum standards?
Li-Chun: Yes, and I will discuss this with my colleagues, and I think in the EV Guidelines we say they are from X.520, so we don’t want an X.520 and RFC 5280 … There are Microsoft registered proprietary OIDs. So I think several years ago they discussed this about the EV Guidelines and they follow the TOC for Microsoft’s suggestions for OIDs and nobody cared about this, and now we find in an international environment we suggest that we not use a proprietary OID.
Peter: OK. Now I believe on the other topic of Distinguished Names, Subject Contents, you sent the diagram from the X.500 series several times … I believe it is from X.521? Your concern is that, as defined by the X.500 series, distinguished names should be part of a hierarchical tree. So the challenge is that the CA/B Forum guidelines do not follow that because it is not possible to make a reasonable hierarchical tree with the distinguished names that are specified in the guidelines. For example, the EV Guidelines require two entries that both require country names, which therefore does not follow X.520. Is that correct?
Li-Chun: We want to start discussing this problem in more countries like Taiwan or Singapore and so we don’t have the state or province and we have a centralized database of government to let different companies will not have the same company’s name. We have an English version. I have referenced our Taiwan Companies Act, and there are those rules, and the Distinguished Name for the company certificate, we use either the state or province. So we suggest that we release the restrictions that we have to put the state or province for small countries. Like Ben’s suggestion, we can list those country codes that don’t require the state or province. For those companies, their distinguished name can just be, for example, C=TW, O=Chunghwa Telecom, and we need not put in L=Taipei City.
Peter: Li-Chun, are you using a standard in Taiwan, or is there something that your CA complies with, where you use the Distinguished Name that is present in your certificates in another context?
Li-Chun: We have a commercial CA and a government CA, and for those CAs with the Distinguished Name we can distinguish in the whole country the jurisdiction. We don’t need to put in a locality because of the X.520 hierarchy structure. And we can distinguish the company and we can guarantee that they will not have the same name. So we will not put in the locality. I reference that in the email.
Peter: So, what if all of the web browsers said, “we don’t care about X.520 and the hierarchy. That is, we’re using X.509-formatted certificates, but the intent is not to follow the strict, direct hierarchy that is called out in some of the other standards”? Does that conflict with other things that you are required to follow?
Li-Chun: If for some reason you say you didn’t want to follow X.520, but in the EV Guidelines you say you follow X.520, I see in RFC 5280, and Baseline Requirements, and the EV Guidelines all say we follow the X.520 standard. I don’t know why other CA/Browser Forum members would not want to follow. Where we identify the subject’s identity, we first have to check with the government so that we will know it. You have to consider the small country’s situation. In America you have so many states, and you can use those to distinguish the English name, but in our country, we rely on the X.520 data. I think it is fundamental for each CA to distinguish their own subscribers’ identities. We have to keep them distinguished if they have a different public key, a different subject distinguished name, and a different serial number. We have to vet them to prevent a collision problem.
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Erwann Abalea
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:02 AM
To: 陳立群 <realsky at cht.com.tw<mailto:realsky at cht.com.tw>>
Cc: CABFPub <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520
Bonjour,
I haven’t seen an authoritative definition of these 3 attributes, but always considered them the way Peter described them.
Maybe Microsoft should propose a clear definition, using the syntax from RFC5912, something like this:
id-MS-jurisdictionLocalityName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 6 1 4 1 311 60 2 1 1 }
id-MS-jurisdictionStateOrProvinceName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 6 1 4 1 311 60 2 1 2 }
id-MS-jurisdictionCountryName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 6 1 4 1 311 60 2 1 3 }
at-jurisdictionCountryName ATTRIBUTE ::= {
TYPE PrintableString (SIZE (2))
IDENTIFIED BY id-MS-jurisdictionCountryName
}
at-jurisdictionStateOrProvinceName ATTRIBUTE ::= {
TYPE DirectoryString {ub-state-name}
IDENTIFIED BY id-MS-jurisdictionStateOrProvinceName
}
at-jurisdictionLocalityName ATTRIBUTE ::= {
TYPE DirectoryString {ub-locality-name}
IDENTIFIED BY id-MS-jurisdictionLocalityName
}
DirectoryString is also redefined in RFC5912 to have a size constraint.
Cordialement,
Erwann Abalea
Le 29 juin 2016 à 17:08, 陳立群 <realsky at cht.com.tw<mailto:realsky at cht.com.tw>> a écrit :
In X.520 as attached file or RFC 5280(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280) , There are no jurisdictionLocalityName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.1),
jurisdictionStateOrProvinceName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.2), jurisdictionCountryName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.3). You can use search function to search attached PDF file.
These three OIDs are registered by Microsoft. Please see http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.1.html, http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.2.html and http://www.alvestrand.no/objectid/1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.3.html
Peter referenced EV GL 9.2.5 such as
Naming attributes of type X520LocalityName
id-at-localityName AttributeType ::= { id-at 7 }
that id is 2.5.4.
But Country Name (2.5.4.6), State or Province Name (2.5.4.8) and Locality Name (2.5.4.7) are appeared in X.520.
Li-Chun CHEN
-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 4:52 AM
To: CABFPub
Subject: [cabfpub] EV Gudelines section 9.2.5 & X.520
On today’s validation working group call, there was a question about how X.520 related to the attributes defined in section 9.2.5 of the EV Guidelines.
This section says:
"Locality (if required):
subject:jurisdictionLocalityName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.1)
ASN.1 - X520LocalityName as specified in RFC 5280
State or province (if required):
subject:jurisdictionStateOrProvinceName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.2)
ASN.1 - X520StateOrProvinceName as specified in RFC 5280
Country:
subject:jurisdictionCountryName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.3)
ASN.1 – X520countryName as specified in RFC 5280"
The ASN.1 definitions all reference RFC 5280 and are defined in Appendix A. They are copied at the end of this email. RFC 5280 also says " The DirectoryString type is defined as a choice of PrintableString, TeletexString, BMPString, UTF8String, and UniversalString. CAs conforming to this profile MUST use either the PrintableString or UTF8String encoding of DirectoryString”
Taken together, this means:
jurisdictionCountryName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.3) must be a PrintableString with two characters which together are a “alpha 2” code defined in ISO 3166 Part 1.
jurisdictionStateOrProvinceName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.2), if included, should be either a PrintableString or UTF8String and must contain at least 1 and not more than 128 characters.
jurisdictionLocalityName (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.1), if included, shoud be either a PrintableString or UTF8String and must contain at least 1 and not more than 128 characters.
The appropriate values for these attributes, and when one needs to include the the latter two, is defined in section 9.2.5 as well.
Does this help clarify how these attributes work?
Thanks,
Peter
-- Naming attributes of type X520LocalityName
id-at-localityName AttributeType ::= { id-at 7 }
-- Naming attributes of type X520LocalityName:
-- X520LocalityName ::= DirectoryName (SIZE (1..ub-locality-name))
--
-- Expanded to avoid parameterized type:
X520LocalityName ::= CHOICE {
teletexString TeletexString (SIZE (1..ub-locality-name)),
printableString PrintableString (SIZE (1..ub-locality-name)),
universalString UniversalString (SIZE (1..ub-locality-name)),
utf8String UTF8String (SIZE (1..ub-locality-name)),
bmpString BMPString (SIZE (1..ub-locality-name)) }
-- Naming attributes of type X520StateOrProvinceName
id-at-stateOrProvinceName AttributeType ::= { id-at 8 }
-- Naming attributes of type X520StateOrProvinceName:
-- X520StateOrProvinceName ::= DirectoryName (SIZE (1..ub-state-name))
--
-- Expanded to avoid parameterized type:
X520StateOrProvinceName ::= CHOICE {
teletexString TeletexString (SIZE (1..ub-state-name)),
printableString PrintableString (SIZE (1..ub-state-name)),
universalString UniversalString (SIZE (1..ub-state-name)),
utf8String UTF8String (SIZE (1..ub-state-name)),
bmpString BMPString (SIZE (1..ub-state-name)) }
-- Naming attributes of type X520countryName (digraph from IS 3166)
id-at-countryName AttributeType ::= { id-at 6 }
X520countryName ::= PrintableString (SIZE (2))
-- Upper Bounds
ub-locality-name INTEGER ::= 128
ub-state-name INTEGER ::= 128
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件. 如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任.
Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.
<T-REC-X.520-201210-I!!PDF-E.pdf>_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org<mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
本信件可能包含中華電信股份有限公司機密資訊,非指定之收件者,請勿蒐集、處理或利用本信件內容,並請銷毀此信件. 如為指定收件者,應確實保護郵件中本公司之營業機密及個人資料,不得任意傳佈或揭露,並應自行確認本郵件之附檔與超連結之安全性,以共同善盡資訊安全與個資保護責任.
Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.
<Suggestion-to-BR-Section7.1.4.2.2de.docx><Suggestion-to-BR-Section7.1.4.2.2de.pdf>_______________________________________________
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/20160715/77814a2a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Public
mailing list