[Servercert-wg] Ballots SC20 and SC21
sleevi at google.com
Mon Jun 3 07:38:29 MST 2019
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:04 PM Tobias S. Josefowitz <tobij at opera.com> wrote:
> > However, in this case, I'm considering the 'when things go wrong'
> > When Hans doesn't do this, and the Web server gets popped and an XSS is
> > added to slurp the RA's/CA's credentials, and then use that to manually
> > approve a certificate for 'google.com' (for example), I go ask the CA
> > an incident report and ask them to tell me what they were doing and why
> > their systems should have fixed this. When they reveal Hans wasn't
> > doing this, it's clear that the CA was violating the NetSec requirements,
> > and calls into question what the auditor was doing to assess that Hans
> > and had been, since they clearly weren't. We've got an unambiguous
> > violation of the requirements.
> And here I am unsure if you do not give the current 1h of the NSRs more
> credit than it deserves. First of all, "[Human] Review" certainly includes
> a bit of "best effort"; if not in the scope of items to be reviewed (even
> that is unclear to me), then certainly in what will be the result of the
> review. We do, after all, incorporate the human element, and humans make
> mistakes (or so they say).
I don't think that in any way excuses things, as the past decade of the CA
Web PKI has shown us. A human failure is, unfortunately, the most common
failure it seems for CAs today - again, simply looking at the number of
"Some-State" / "Some-City" certificates, and the challenges some CAs are
facing (claiming they need 2+ months to replace), shows we've got many
If a CA has not designed a system robust to account for Hans' human error,
than the fault lies with the CA, full-stop. They're not meeting the level
of expectation and trust placed in them.
> Imagine the scenario of a CA based on Windows-family operating systems. An
> adversary makes a change to the registry that cripples the security of the
> CA. Now, is the registry configuration? Are only some parts of it
> configuration? Can we blame Hans if he misses a change (I am assuming the
> registry may change wildly, this may not be the case in the real world),
> and can we blame Hans for deeming a change in it - or any configuration
> actually - to be benign when it is not?
These are all questions the CA needs to address, and must take the
maximally conservative definition upon these in order to uphold the trust
placed in them. If and when such an issue is detected, the factors that
went into that decision, the risk analysis, the number of controls and
design, all of those factor in to the incident report, so that we can
formalize best practices, and look at both the specific implementation
questions as well as the generalized rule.
I don't look at Hans' specifically, but I think any CA that fails to ask
themselves these questions, fails to take a view that says "For safety, we
should say yes", and fails to design systems to account for that as being
And last but not least, what if a CA says "yes sure, Hans complained about
> this issue since 2016, but we are not in a habit of listening to him
> anyway"; the current language in the NSRs does not require any resulting
> action whatsoever. That is, unless you consider at least some
> configuration issues found under review to be a "Critical Vulnerability"
> (do you?). Or am I missing another mechanism?
I do agree that the proposal benefits from placing remediation in scope.
However, and again, this is nothing new as the past several years of
incident reports show, a more practical and common answer is "Yes, Hans
complained about this for years, so we scheduled this for our 2021
refresh." And that's part of why I say the proposed improvement is... not
That said, what would we need to do language-wise to put you in a position
> to act on a "less-than-stellar" assessment of security-relevant
> configurations in the same way that you say you could act on review
I think the existing language, while not perfect, addresses that better
than the proposed language, in that it reduces ambiguity and
interpretation. I'm still uncertain about the need to leave things
generalized by limiting it to a subset of the affected systems, a subset of
the configuration, or ambiguous statements such as "where applicable". In
short, I don't think there is or should be room for interpretation, or when
it is afforded, it should be accounted for with some degree of
transparency; whether in the results, the disclosure, or some other form is
perhaps situation dependent.
Today, that transparency is partially accounted for through the incident
reports that Mozilla makes public, which helps the whole community - Forum
included - better understand where challenges are. If there are specific
cases you can demonstrate where non-compliance existed, but was deemed to
be reasonable, that might help find better language - as we saw in the
revocation discussions. If there are specific implementation examples where
the existing requirements prevent or create challenges for CAs to implement
reasonable mitigations, that too is useful to share - as we saw in the
validation discussions. But I don't think we'll end up with good results
trying to abstract it away.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Servercert-wg