[cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5

Wed Jan 10 19:37:22 UTC 2018

Ryan,
              Thank you for replying as this is a good discussion to have. “Direct contact” is great method when you don’t have a clean, reliable data source to validate ownership. For Registrar / CA combos, whereby the same account ordered the domain and the cert, knowledge of ownership is robust. Requiring a second contact doesn’t seem more secure, but rather seems more cumbersome for an already complex process. If you are concerned about the possibility of a customer account being compromised, it doesn’t change the risk. If there was a compromise they would have control over DNS and could then domain validate a cert order from anyone.
              Rather than eliminate .1, I believe a better course of action would be to add transparency and lock down when you can and cannot use the registrar validation method.

kind regards,
Daymion

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:42 PM
To: Daymion T. Reynolds <dreynolds at godaddy.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Cc: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5

Daymion,

Given the proposals so far, do you believe that the 'direct contact' method satisfies your concerns?

The substantial difference here in the use of .2/.3 vs .1 is that you actually need to contact the customer for approval prior to issuance. This seems like it should be an uncontroversially good thing, and not presently required under .1, as previously demonstrated.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Daymion T. Reynolds via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
Tim,

              I concur with Kirk’s statement about method 1. Method 1 should be improved, as we should leverage CA/Registrar combos whenever possible. With the objective being ownership validation, I can’t think of a better method of knowing who actually owns a domain than to have the same authoritative customer account order a cert for an owned domain. Performing the account check provides a high degree of confidence.

Regards,
Daymion
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 1:10 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com<mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5

Tim, I thought this issue was going to be discussed first by the VWG, as several CAs have indicated they would like to keep (but improve) Method 1.

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 11:22 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5

Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5

Purpose of Ballot: Section 3.2.2.4 says that it “defines the permitted processes and procedures for validating the Applicant’s ownership or control of the domain.”  Most of the validation methods actually do validate ownership and control, but two do not, and can be completed solely based on an applicant’s own assertions.

Since these two validation methods do not meet the objectives of section 3.2.2.4, and are actively being used to avoid validating domain control or ownership, they should be removed, and the other methods that do validate domain control or ownership should be used.

The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Rich Smith of Comodo.

-- MOTION BEGINS –

This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” as follows, based upon Version 1.5.4:

In Section 3.2.2.4.1, add text at the end: “For certificates issued on or after March 1, 2018, this method SHALL NOT be used for validation, and completed validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance of certificates.”

In Section 3.2.2.4.5, add text at the end: “For certificates issued on or after March 1, 2018, this method SHALL NOT be used for validation, and completed validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance of certificates.”

In Section 4.2.1, after the paragraph that begins “After the change to any validation method”, add the following paragraph: “Validations completed using methods specified in Section 3.2.2.4.1 or Section 3.2.2.4.5 SHALL NOT be re-used on or after March 1, 2018.”

-- MOTION ENDS –

For the purposes of section 4.2.1, the new text added to 4.2.1 from this ballot is “specifically provided in a [this] ballot.”

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Discussion (7+ days)
  Start Time: 2017-01-03  19:30:00 UTC
  End Time: Not Before 2017-01-10 19:30:00 UTC

Vote for approval (7 days)
  Start Time: TBD
  End Time: TBD

_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180110/34fc2333/attachment-0003.html>