[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

Wed May 23 12:21:35 UTC 2018

People fought pretty hard for the ability to post ballots without redlines; this isn’t the first by far.  I actually opposed that and lost.

I strongly encourage attachment of redlines, and this is the first time I haven’t, unfortunately due to time constraints.  I try to do it whenever possible.

I believe if you look at the definitions, a Draft Guideline Ballot is the ballot posted by the chair after voting ends as part of the IPR process.  That’s my recollection.

-Tim

From: Kirk Hall [mailto:Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:40 PM
To: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

Bylaw 2.4(a) says the following: “***If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines.  Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.4(j) below.”

I’m inclined to agree with Wayne, and it’s certainly hard to evaluate the ballot language without pulling out a copy of the NetSec Requirements first to see the context and what was changed.

Tim, Dimitris, and Neal – what do you think?  Is the form of Ballot 221 compliant with the Bylaws?  Do you want to ditch this ballot (we don’t have a quorum yet) and start again, including a red-line or comparison showing the changes from the current NetSec Requirements?

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:00 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com <mailto:tim.hollebeek at digicert.com> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

I'm unable to locate a redline of the changes in this final version of the ballot, making it difficult to vote. Is this not a "Draft Guideline Ballot" that should be clearly labeled as proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, and that requires a redline be provided?

- Wayne

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:45 AM Blunt, Dave via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> > wrote:

Amazon votes YES on Ballot 221.

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> ] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 2:48 PM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements

Purpose of Ballot: The Network Security Working Group met a number of times to 

improve the Network Security Guidelines requirements around authentication,

specifically by requiring two-factor authentication, and improving the password 

requirements in line with more recent NIST guidelines.

While CAs are encouraged to improve their password requirements as soon as 

possible, a two year grace period is being given to allow organizations to 

develop and implement policies to implement the improved requirements, especially

since some organizations may have to simultaneously comply with other

compliance frameworks that have not been updated yet and are based on older NIST 

guidance about passwords.

The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed 

by Dimitris Zacharopoulos of Harica and Neil Dunbar of TrustCor.

— MOTION BEGINS –

This ballot modifies the “Network and Certificate System Security Requirements” 

as follows, based upon Version 1.1:

In the definitions, add a definition for Multi-Factor Authentication:

"Multi-Factor Authentication: An authentication mechanism consisting of two or 

more of the following independent categories of credentials (i.e. factors) to 

verify the user’s identity for a login or other transaction: something you know 

(knowledge factor), something you have (possession factor), and something you 

are (inherence factor).  Each factor must be independent.  Certificate-based 

authentication can be used as part of Multifactor Authentication only if the 

private key is stored in a Secure Key Storage Device."

Capitalize all instances of the defined term "Multi-Factor Authentication".

Add a definition for Secure Key Storage Device:

"Secure Key Storage Device: A device certified as meeting at least FIPS 140-2

level 2 overall, level 3 physical, or Common Criteria (EAL 4+)."

In section 1.j., capitalize Multi-Factor Authentication, and strike the 

parenthetical reference to subsection 2.n.(ii).

In section 2.f., add "(for accountability purposes, group accounts or shared

role credentials SHALL NOT be used)" after "authenticate to Certificate Systems".

Change section 2.g. to read:

"g. If an authentication control used by a Trusted Role is a username and password, 

    then, where technically feasible, implement the following controls:

  i.           For accounts that are accessible only within Secure Zones or High Security 

               Zones, require that passwords have at least twelve (12) characters; 

  ii.          For authentications which cross a zone boundary into a Secure Zone or High 

               Security Zone, require Multi-Factor Authentication.  For accounts accessible 

               from outside a Secure Zone or High Security Zone require passwords that have 

               at least eight (8) characters and are not be one of the user's previous 

               four (4) passwords; and implement account lockout for failed access attempts 

               in accordance with subsection k;

  iii.        When developing password policies, CAs SHOULD take into account the password 

               guidance in NIST 800-63B Appendix A.

  iv.         If passwords are required to be changed periodically, that period SHOULD be 

               at least two years.  Effective April 1, 2020, if passwords are required to 

               be changed periodically, that period SHALL be at least two years."

In section 2.h., change "Require" to "Have a policy that requires"

In section 2.i., change "Configure" to "Have a procedure to configure"

Change section 2.k. to read:

"k. Lockout account access to Certificate Systems after no more than five (5) failed 

    access attempts, provided that this security measure:

  i.           is supported by the Certificate System,

  ii.          Cannot be leveraged for a denial of service attack, and

  iii.        does not weaken the security of this authentication control;"

Change section 2.n. to read:

"Enforce Multi-Factor Authentication for all Trusted Role accounts on Certificate

Systems (including those approving the issuance of a Certificate, which equally

applies to Delegated Third Parties) that are accessible from outside a Secure Zone

or High Security Zone; and"

— MOTION ENDS –

The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

Discussion (7+ days)

Start Time: 2018-03-28  15:00:00 EDT

End Time: 2018-05-17 17:45:00 EDT

Vote for approval (7 days)

Start Time: 2018-05-17 17:45:00 EDT

End Time: 2018-05-24 17:45:00 EDT

_______________________________________________
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/20180523/2ca0e1c8/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180523/2ca0e1c8/attachment-0003.p7s>