[cabfpub] Audits and RAs

Jeff Ward jward at bdo.com
Tue Jun 18 18:07:30 UTC 2019

Ryan, you are correct.  WebTrust for RA has been completed, version 1.0 effective April 30, 2019.  We are now in the process of finalizing the illustrative report.

National Managing Partner Third Party Attestation (SOC/WebTrust/Cybersecurity)
314-889-1220 (Direct)    347-1220 (Internal)
314-387-0189 (Mobile)
jward at bdo.com<mailto:jward at bdo.com>

101 S Hanley Rd, Suite 800
St. Louis, MO 63105

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi via Public
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 12:52 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Audits and RAs

Attention: This email was sent from someone outside of BDO USA. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links from unknown senders or when receiving unexpected emails.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:35 PM Jeremy Rowley via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
I think I heard the WebTrust auditors say last week that they have finished or nearly finished the WebTrust for RAs criteria. The language from Section 8.4 of the guidelines reads:

“For Delegated Third Parties which are not Enterprise RAs,, then the CA SHALL obtain an audit report, issued under the auditing standards that underlie the accepted audit schemes found in Section 8.1, that provides an opinion whether the Delegated Third Party’s performance complies with either the Delegated Third Party’s practice statement or the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement. If the opinion is that the Delegated Third Party does not comply, then the CA SHALL not allow the Delegated Third Party to continue performing delegated functions.”

We know some CAs use RAs that are not audited under WebTrust/ETSI because “there is no appropriate audit standard”. Now that there is an audit standards, it seems to me this criteria goes into effect immediately and any RA not audited would cause the CA to be out of compliance with the BRs. No additional ballot required since the concept is already baked into the BRs.

Anyone have a different interpretation?  If not, when is the exact date that the audits should be done? Already?

TL;DR: Don't worry. I don't think there's an impending doom date.

Officially, Chrome is not planning to immediately enforce the WebTrust for RAs audit, and is still evaluating the most effective means to use and consume this.

For best results, however, don't use RAs ;)

Here's the alternative interpretation I'll over you:

The "auditing standards that underlie the accepted audit criteria" are, in the case of WebTrust, are SSAE 18 (US), CSAE 3000 - 3001 (CA), and ISAE 3000 (elsewhere), with potentially jurisidiction-specific (self-?)regulatory requirements or modifications, similar to the US/CA harmonization with IFAC.

The "auditing standards that underlie the accepted audit criteria" are, for ETSI EN 319 411-1 and ETSI EN 319 403, either (depending on your perspective of "standard"), going to be seen as:
  a) ETSI EN 319 411-1 / ETSI EN 319 403
  b) ISO/IEC 17065

The former takes the view that the ETSI ESI documents are themselves the standards for auditing, in that they define a set of standards appropriate for "an" audit scheme, although absent the eIDAS Regulation lacks any normative guidance about who the defining authority is for the appropriate auditor (compared to IFAC and its constituent organizations, which does).

The latter takes the view that the ETSI ESI documents are themselves adopted from the ISO/IEC standards and guidance on the development of certification schemes (which covers a broad scheme of activities), and that any scheme derived from the principles of 17065 is suitably empowered. It, similarly, lacks the guidance as to who can perform the assessments, since that is the role of the scheme operator (e.g. EU in the case of eIDAS)

The "nice" thing about these interpretations is that for CAs that are concerned about being beyond reproach, but still make the (unfortunate) choice to make use of delegated third parties, they can read these requirements as using the relevant criteria from WebTrust or ETSI, under the existing supervisory scheme, and argue compliance. CAs that don't like to/don't want to know what their RAs are doing, and aren't as concerned about security, could reasonably argue that the applicability of the underlying standard means the CA defines what the expectations are (for example, an "Agreed Upon Procedures" report - which I'm sure Don and Jeff will jump in mentioning the CSAE limitations there), and then allow 'anyone' to perform that audit, modulo the IFAC standards with respect to professional licensure.

BDO USA, LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms.

BDO is the brand name for the BDO network and for each of the BDO Member Firms.


The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from BDO USA, LLP. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, the information contained in this e-mail, or any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be immediately returned to BDO USA, LLP or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify BDO USA, LLP by e-mail immediately.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20190618/805df588/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list