[cabf_validation] Underscores, DNSNames, and SRVNames
sleevi at google.com
Thu Oct 11 08:00:20 MST 2018
If CAs are unable to correctly implement the RFCs, which have been clear
and unambiguous with respect to their expectations for 2 decades - that is,
there is a documented, explicit grammar as to acceptable characters,
supported throughout multiple dependent RFCs - I fail to see how any change
to the Baseline Requirements would improve that scenario or improve the
security of the ecosystem.
The issue, it seems, is not a question about whether or not it's been
permitted by the RFCs - there has yet to be a response that can provide any
text supporting an interpretation of the clear, technically specified
language that has already existed - but rather a question of whether
auditors are expected to examine and report on RFC5280 compliance, and
whether browser programs will accept material non-conformities such as this
issue and continue to trust the CA. Alternatively, if the view is that it
would substantially improve security to explicitly deviate from the
consensus-driven standards such as RFC5280, then it is necessary for such
parties to demonstrate why this is so. The closest comparison we have is
the misuse of the dNSName to contain IP addresses - which at least observed
the explicit syntax of RFC5280 even though it violated the semantics within
the text - and no such sunset was necessary because it was never permitted
nor was it, in fact, necessary.
I find it impossible to believe that there's going to be some ecosystem
wide difficulty if "*.s1._domainkey.ayakkabionline.com"  can't be issued
(_domainkey is for TXT records; this is clearly a misconfigured server) or
if American Express can't get one for "a_18-04-27-385077-rray-cert.aexp.com"
. Simply counting misissued certs doesn't actually provide any insight
into whether there's an actual need.
Perhaps the best approach is to start filing problem reports with CAs for
unrevoked misissued certificates, such as , so that the CA must respond
to the substance. Any CA that fails to revoke should be flagged,
particularly by auditors. If the belief is that auditors can't/shouldn't be
expected to catch this - perhaps because the auditor is opining in their
view, it's OK to ignore RFC 5280, or because they don't understand why it's
a clear, cut, and dry violation of RFC 5280 - and thus not qualifying their
opinion, that should be a concern with that particular auditor. If the view
is that auditors shouldn't be expected to detect this because they only
have to do sampling, then we browsers should be re-evaluating whether more
prescriptiveness as to the suitability for sampling is necessary - and no
doubt with cost being incurred by CAs to support that.
As I said, it's no different than any other RFC 5280 or BR violation - such
as invalid characters in the domain (e.g. double dots), explicitly DER
encoded default values in sequences, or a failure to validate domain names.
If it has to be spelled out for a given CA, that's not a good sign - for
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:17 AM Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
> Why? Would it change your mind? It’s probably an unreasonable argument.
> Plus we already stopped issuing certs with underscore characters. The
> writing is on the wall on this one so the main question for me is how
> should we prevent having this discussion again in another two years?
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2018 3:02 AM
> *To:* Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
> *Cc:* CA/Browser Forum Validation WG List <validation at cabforum.org>;
> Wayne Thayer <wthayer at mozilla.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabf_validation] Underscores, DNSNames, and SRVNames
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:57 AM Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
> “Incorrect extensions” is hardly prohibitive of underscore characters
> especially where the only mention of underscores is 5280 is:
> When the subjectAltName extension contains a domain name system
> label, the domain name MUST be stored in the dNSName (an IA5String).
> The name MUST be in the "preferred name syntax", as specified by
> Section 3.5 of [RFC1034] and as modified by Section 2.1 of
> plus the BRs
> 220.127.116.11. All Certificates
> All other fields and extensions MUST be set in accordance with RFC 5280.
> Can you remind me again where there's any possible interpretation of the
> above that would result in underscores being permitted?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Validation