[Smcwg-public] [External Sender] Re: [EXTERNAL]-Re: Fields for S/MIME CSRs

[Russ Housley]

Doug, 

See RFC 8823.

Russ

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 6:27 AM, Doug Beattie via Smcwg-public <smcwg-public at cabforum.org> wrote:
> 
> I haven’t been following the status of ACME for S/MIME, but I presume there are some fields in that CSR that would be used to automate certificate issuance. Maybe that is a place to start looking for meaningful fields within a CSR?  I know that we typically only pull out the public key from CSRs and all other info is provided outside of it.
>  
> Doug
>  
> From: Smcwg-public <smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org>> On Behalf Of Adriano Santoni via Smcwg-public
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 2:57 AM
> To: smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public at cabforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Smcwg-public] [External Sender] Re: [EXTERNAL]-Re: Fields for S/MIME CSRs
>  
> Not necessarily: the email address can be transmitted to the CA as a separate datum. 
> 
> Indeed, I would say that this is preferable because it allows syntax checking on the email address without even starting to look at the CSR, from which in my opinion only the public key should be taken.
> 
> Adriano
> 
>  
> 
> Il 29/09/2023 21:21, Ben Wilson via Smcwg-public ha scritto:
> NOTICE: Pay attention - external email - Sender is 0100018ae263a9a7-3e84e260-b7d7-43c5-85cb-d1425682cb27-000000 at amazonses.com <mailto:0100018ae263a9a7-3e84e260-b7d7-43c5-85cb-d1425682cb27-000000 at amazonses.com>
>  
>  
> Shouldn't at least the email address be included, and verified, of course, by the CA?
>  
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023, 11:35 AM Pedro FUENTES <pfuentes at wisekey.com <mailto:pfuentes at wisekey.com>> wrote:
> +1
>  
> 
> 
> Le 29 sept. 2023 à 17:52, Clint Wilson via Smcwg-public <smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public at cabforum.org>> a écrit :
> 
> Hi all, 
>  
> In my opinion, CSRs should really be limited to conveying the public key and a proof of possession of the private key; the fields included therein may act as confirmatory signals for a CA, but shouldn’t be directly relied upon e.g. to generate a tbsCertificate. Rather, the values placed in fields of a tbsCertificate should originate from the CA’s validated data store to ensure that the only paths for data to become part of a signed certificate are through static configurations (e.g. signatureAlgorithm) or known-validated data.
>  
> There’s plenty of nuance we can discuss as well, but generally speaking I believe it’s bad practice to rely on fields in the CSR.
>  
> Cheers,
> -Clint
> 
> 
> On Sep 29, 2023, at 8:27 AM, Ben Wilson via Smcwg-public <smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
>  
> All,
> I'm interested in gathering information from Certificate Issuers about the kind of information that they would like to collect/extract from the CSRs they receive from S/MIME certificate applicants. This information could be used to refine a system to generate CSRs that result in certificates compliant with the various profiles defined in the S/MIME BRs. Alternatively, what is the minimum amount of information that CAs might expect to obtain from CSRs? In other words, which fields should a CSR generator integrated with a Certificate Consumer's software support?
> Thanks,
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Smcwg-public mailing list
> Smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:Smcwg-public at cabforum.org>
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/smcwg-public
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Smcwg-public mailing list
> Smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:Smcwg-public at cabforum.org>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cabforum.org_mailman_listinfo_smcwg-2Dpublic&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-bX5hBm1IdRDykQ-dBR8tsFRCM4v1VXUyG7RZa2WqPY&m=SdzPRXhti18pWLmVPVZwDOe4My0SBGtWzL3HSt02tHKsXpWQUw9YUb_QzXtxZYtw&s=5yodJ9UuvfVvN_CqY53dyFJyNwYRRJDEfhmuysvXrQA&e=
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Smcwg-public mailing list
> Smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:Smcwg-public at cabforum.org>
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/smcwg-public
> _______________________________________________
> Smcwg-public mailing list
> Smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:Smcwg-public at cabforum.org>
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/smcwg-public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20231002/6ba1d814/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4382 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20231002/6ba1d814/attachment.p7s>