[cabfpub] Code Signing Working Group

[Richard Wang]

I think everyone still remember the following graph that Dean draw in Phenix meeting,
We can have more powerful code signing WG under CABF, the CSWG work for the code signing BR and EV code signing guideline. The Code Signing BR can be voted by CSWG member only, if pass, then it become a formal document that say "it is approved by CABF CSWG". This is the solution.

We don't like to see the CABF change to SSLBF, we like to see our organization grow up and have great influence to Internet society. How? Form the  4 WG as proposed, give the 4 WG more power to form its own BR and guideline.

Code signing BR is very important for the Internet security to stop malware, to help to improve the global internet security.  CSWG still have many work to do to stop malware black industry, to enhance the malware signer info share system.
I know Mozilla don't support code signing now, but this don't means CABF must change to be SSLBF, right?

And I think we still need to work hard to form Client WG and Doc WG to guideline this two no rule industry.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image1.PNG
Type: image/png
Size: 96166 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160506/4b8bff84/attachment-0001.png 
-------------- next part --------------


Regards,

Richard

> On May 7, 2016, at 04:16, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
> 
> More later perhaps but:
> 
>> On 06/05/16 21:10, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
>> Neither of these changes should have any effect on what people want to put in
>> the document or use it for. Or, for that matter, whether they can talk about
>> it in Bilbao.
>> [JR] Doesn't it? Seems like that's exactly the intent.
> 
> I thought I was very clear: I have no objection (subject to the
> permission of the person who rents the room, which I'm sure you'd get)
> for the same people to meet to discuss the same things at the same time
> they would have met otherwise, and I have no views on what they can talk
> about or what documents they can edit. I might even be there myself. My
> proposals have bent over backwards to avoid inconveniencing anyone by
> this formal change of status.
> 
> But I think it's wrong for work to continue _under_the_CAB_Forum_banner_
> on a document _which_retains_a_CAB_Forum_label_ but which has no
> prospect of becoming an official work product of the Forum, and which is
> instead being edited for the use of particular companies and programs
> which are not the Forum's responsibility.
> 
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 7208 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160506/4b8bff84/attachment-0001.bin