[Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL]-Re: Common Name contents

Martijn Katerbarg martijn.katerbarg at sectigo.com
Thu Mar 10 20:31:25 UTC 2022

+ Another one. 


I’m also worried that this 3% audit for Enterprise RA’s might become a GDPR (or likewise in different territories) nightmare. 


From: Smcwg-public <smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Doug Beattie via Smcwg-public
Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2022 14:47
To: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr>; SMIME Certificate Working Group <smcwg-public at cabforum.org>; Henschel, Andreas <a.henschel at d-trust.net>
Subject: Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL]-Re: Common Name contents


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


I agree that we should not permit completely unvalidated in in the certificates, but can we delegate the validation of these 3 fields to the Enterprise RA to not include “misleading” information (without requiring CA and Enterprise audits)?  Mandating formal audits of this data is a no-go, imo.  


From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr <mailto:dzacharo at harica.gr> > 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 7:59 AM
To: Doug Beattie <doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com> >; SMIME Certificate Working Group <smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public at cabforum.org> >; Henschel, Andreas <a.henschel at d-trust.net <mailto:a.henschel at d-trust.net> >
Subject: Re: [Smcwg-public] [EXTERNAL]-Re: Common Name contents



On 10/3/2022 2:22 μ.μ., Doug Beattie wrote:

If there are usecases that demand more, then let’s let them define those rules and policy OIDs to be used in the certificates on top of the profiles we’re defining here.

I'm afraid I can't support that position. We have always had rules to include validated information in the certificates, even "any other method" that the CA deems appropriate. Even for the subject:organizationalUnitName field, there were rules describing what the CA MUST NOT allow. Allowing fields without any vetting whatsoever is not correct IMHO. It should not be considered "appropriate" from the CA because it is not performing any sort of validation!

BTW, I agree with the position to bring in use cases and define rules. The WG needs to be a bit more active in that regard because it is the only way that existing use cases will be discussed, analyzed and safe practices included in the SMBRs. However, until we have those use cases brought forward so that the WG can define rules, I believe we should not allow them.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20220310/a39901b8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20220310/a39901b8/attachment.p7s>

More information about the Smcwg-public mailing list