[Smcwg-public] [External] RE: [External] Draft proposal to add eIDAS QES as vetting evidence for individual

[Judith Spencer]

Stephen

I understand that.  However, if the language stands as proposed, I believe
it will cause confusion.  eIDAS is regional.  My proposed language was
intended to acknowledge that fact.  

Also, I don't believe it is explicit that this is a 3rd party credential.
As I read it (and I admit I may have missed something), it would apply to
any digital credential used to affix a signature - even one previously
issued by the same organization.  That is actually the use case that most
concerns me.

Judy 

 

 

Judith Spencer | PMA Chair | CertiPath, Inc.

1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 303, Reston, VA 20190

PH +1.301.974.4227

Email  <mailto:Judith.Spencer at CertiPath.com> Judith.Spencer at CertiPath.com 

 

From: Stephen Davidson <Stephen.Davidson at digicert.com> 
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 11:57 AM
To: Judith Spencer <Judith.Spencer at certipath.com>; SMIME Certificate Working
Group <smcwg-public at cabforum.org>
Subject: [External] RE: [External] [Smcwg-public] Draft proposal to add
eIDAS QES as vetting evidence for individual

 

Hi Judith -

 

The text in question allows a CA to look at a third-party cert associated
with a signature and, if it's issued under an approved framework, the CA can
accept the individual identity attributes in the cert as verified.

 

When the BR was published it laid out acceptance criteria in 3.2.4.1 (4) (b)
- but purposefully did not name any approved frameworks in 3.2.4.1 (4) (a)
following a decision by the working group that each such framework should be
the subject of a separate ballot. The current draft is an effort to "test"
that process.

 

See more at
https://github.com/cabforum/smime/blob/main/SBR.md#3241-attribute-collection
-of-individual-identity

 

Best, Stephen

 

 

 

 

From: Judith Spencer <Judith.Spencer at certipath.com
<mailto:Judith.Spencer at certipath.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Stephen Davidson <Stephen.Davidson at digicert.com
<mailto:Stephen.Davidson at digicert.com> >; SMIME Certificate Working Group
<smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public at cabforum.org> >
Subject: RE: [External] [Smcwg-public] Draft proposal to add eIDAS QES as
vetting evidence for individual

 

Stephen

My primary concern with the proposed change is that once it finds it's way
into the BR, anyone not in the EU will be eliminated from trusting existing
digital signatures as evidence.  For example, here in the U.S., the U.S.
Government has an extremely robust digital credential based on a full
background check that is independently assessed and accompanied by reams of
documentation, regulation and policy.  Over 7 million individuals hold these
credentials.  But by this policy, signatures from this community would not
be sufficient as evidence.  The CertiPath community, comprised of major
Aerospace Corporations, would likewise be eliminated.  While we don't employ
the same level of background checks in our identity proofing, it is
certainly based on sound practice and audited annually under WebTrust for
CA, which may not be a "national scheme" but is certainly a robust review
process widely recognized in the U.S. and Canada.  

Unless you are prepared to identify schemes that cover all other regions of
the world, I believe it is too early to make this change.  As a compromise,
I suggest you could identify eIDAS as the qualifying scheme for Europe and
remain silent on the rest of the world.  I recommend you revise the opening
as follows:

"If a digital signature is to be used as evidence in the European Union, the
CA or RA SHALL only rely upon the following certificate type:"

Once sufficient assessment has taken place to include all participating
regions, the language could be further modified as you suggest.  

Judy

 

Judith Spencer | PMA Chair | CertiPath, Inc.

1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 303, Reston, VA 20190

PH +1.301.974.4227

Email  <mailto:Judith.Spencer at CertiPath.com> Judith.Spencer at CertiPath.com 

 

From: Smcwg-public <smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org
<mailto:smcwg-public-bounces at cabforum.org> > On Behalf Of Stephen Davidson
via Smcwg-public
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 8:06 PM
To: smcwg-public at cabforum.org <mailto:smcwg-public at cabforum.org> 
Subject: [External] [Smcwg-public] Draft proposal to add eIDAS QES as
vetting evidence for individual

 

 

Hello all:

 

As discussed today, here is draft language for consideration to allow CAs to
rely upon signatures created with eIDAS Qualified certificates as evidence
supporting validation of individual identity.

https://github.com/srdavidson/QES-SMIME-BR/blob/master/QES-proposal.md

 

I'd be grateful for feedback on this language.

Best, Stephen

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20240425/169493f4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 8896 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/smcwg-public/attachments/20240425/169493f4/attachment-0001.p7s>