[cabfpub] [cabfman] Ballot [93] - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)
Rick Andrews
Rick_Andrews at symantec.com
Wed Oct 31 00:02:40 UTC 2012
CAB Forum,
Two questions about this ballot:
1) Does this clause about exponent checking apply to end-entity certificates, intermediate certificates, or both? The ballot is unclear.
2) I'll be honest and admit that I don't know what Ben means about coprime with phi(n). That's not in the ballot so I presume the ballot does not intend for CAs to check for that. Is that everyone else's expectation?
-Rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl at google.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:07 AM
> To: Rick Andrews
> Cc: Robin Alden; Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA);
> CABFMAN; Ben Wilson; public at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabfman] [cabfpub] Ballot [93] - Reasons for Revocation
> (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)
>
> On 26 October 2012 22:15, Rick Andrews <Rick_Andrews at symantec.com>
> wrote:
> > I just realized that Robin's revision seems incorrect. Yngve intended
> that 3 would be treated as a valid exponent (I believe that's what he
> intended), but 3 is not in the range below.
>
> You realise exponents have to be coprime with phi(n), right? So,
> merely "odd" is far from sufficient.
>
> >
> > -Rick
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-
> bounces at cabforum.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Robin Alden
> >> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 3:09 AM
> >> To: 'Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)'; 'CABFMAN';
> >> 'Ben Wilson'
> >> Cc: public at cabforum.org
> >> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot [93] - Reasons for Revocation (BR
> issues
> >> 6, 8, 10, 21)
> >>
> >> Comodo votes 'yes' based on Yngve's clarification that the effective
> >> date would be "Immediate" and that for the RSA public exponent there
> >> was a typo and that part of the motion should read, "The value of
> the
> >> public exponent MUST be an odd number equal to 3 or more, it SHOULD
> be
> >> in the range between
> >> 65,537 (= (2^16)+1) and (2^256)-1."
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-
> >> > bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer
> >> Opera
> >> > Software ASA)
> >> > Sent: 25 October 2012 16:33
> >> > To: CABFMAN; Ben Wilson
> >> > Cc: public at cabforum.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot [93] - Reasons for Revocation (BR
> >> issues
> >> 6,
> >> > 8, 10, 21)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Opera Software votes Yes.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:16:36 +0200, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ballot 93 - Reasons for Revocation (BR issues 6, 8, 10, 21)
> >> > >
> >> > > Yngve N. Pettersen (Opera) made the following motion, endorsed
> by
> >> > > Jeremy Rowley, Digicert and Robin Alden, Comodo:
> >> > >
> >> > > --- Motion begins ---
> >> > >
> >> > > Effective <DTBD>
> >> > >
> >> > > Erratum begins:
> >> > >
> >> > > A. (Issue #8)
> >> > >
> >> > > Add the following as 10.2.5:
> >> > >
> >> > > "10.2.5 Subordinate CA Private Key
> >> > >
> >> > > Parties other than the Subordinate CA SHALL NOT archive the
> >> > > Subordinate CA Private Keys. If the Issuing CA generated the
> >> Private
> >> > > Key on behalf of the Subordinate CA, then the Issuing CA SHALL
> >> > encrypt
> >> > > the Private Key for transport to the Subordinate CA. If the
> Issuing
> >> CA
> >> > > becomes aware that a Subordinate CA's Private Key has been
> >> > > communicated to an unauthorized person or an organization not
> >> > > affiliated with the Subordinate CA, then the Issuing CA SHALL
> >> revoke
> >> > > all certificates that include the Public Key corresponding to
> the
> >> > > communicated Private Key."
> >> > >
> >> > > B. (Issue #8)
> >> > >
> >> > > . Replace the heading of section 13.1.5 with "Reasons for
> Revoking
> >> a
> >> > > Subscriber Certificate"
> >> > >
> >> > > . Add the following as section 13.1.6:
> >> > >
> >> > > "13.1.6 Reasons for Revoking a Subordinate CA Certificate
> >> > >
> >> > > The Issuing CA SHALL revoke a Subordinate CA Certificate within
> >> seven
> >> > > (7) days if one or more of the following occurs:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. The Subordinate CA requests revocation in writing;
> >> > >
> >> > > 2. The Subordinate CA notifies the Issuing CA that the original
> >> > > certificate request was not authorized and does not
> retroactively
> >> > > grant authorization;
> >> > >
> >> > > 3. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Subordinate CA's
> >> Private
> >> > > Key corresponding to the Public Key in the Certificate suffered
> a
> >> Key
> >> > > Compromise or no longer complies with the requirements of
> Appendix
> >> > A,
> >> > >
> >> > > 4. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was
> >> misused;
> >> > >
> >> > > 5. The Issuing CA is made aware that the Certificate was not
> issued
> >> in
> >> > > accordance with or that Subordinate CA has not complied with
> these
> >> > > Baseline Requirements or the applicable Certificate Policy or
> >> > > Certification Practice Statement;
> >> > >
> >> > > 6. The Issuing CA determines that any of the information
> appearing
> >> in
> >> > > the Certificate is inaccurate or misleading;
> >> > >
> >> > > 7. The Issuing CA or Subordinate CA ceases operations for any
> >> reason
> >> > > and has not made arrangements for another CA to provide
> revocation
> >> > > support for the Certificate;
> >> > >
> >> > > 8. The Issuing CA's or Subordinate CA's right to issue
> Certificates
> >> > > under these Requirements expires or is revoked or terminated,
> >> unless
> >> > > the Issuing CA has made arrangements to continue maintaining the
> >> > > CRL/OCSP Repository;
> >> > >
> >> > > 9. Revocation is required by the Issuing CA's Certificate Policy
> >> > > and/or Certification Practice Statement; or
> >> > >
> >> > > 10. The technical content or format of the Certificate presents
> an
> >> > > unacceptable risk to Application Software Suppliers or Relying
> >> Parties
> >> > > (e.g.
> >> > > the CA/Browser Forum might determine that a deprecated
> >> > > cryptographic/signature algorithm or key size presents an
> >> unacceptable
> >> > > risk and that such Certificates should be revoked and replaced
> by
> >> CAs
> >> > > within a given period of time)."
> >> > >
> >> > > C. (Issue #6)
> >> > >
> >> > > .Replace Section 13.1.5(3) with: "(3) The CA obtains evidence
> that
> >> the
> >> > > Subscriber's Private Key corresponding to the Public Key in the
> >> > > Certificate suffered a Key Compromise (also see Section 10.2.4)
> or
> >> no
> >> > > longer complies with the requirements of Appendix A,"
> >> > >
> >> > > .Add the following as a new Section 13.1.5(4) and renumber the
> >> > > remaining bullet points:
> >> > >
> >> > > "(4) The CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was misused;"
> >> > >
> >> > > .Replace the definition of Key Compromise with the following:
> >> > >
> >> > > "Key Compromise: A Private Key is said to be compromised if its
> >> value
> >> > > has been disclosed to an unauthorized person, an unauthorized
> >> person
> >> > > has had access to it, or there exists a practical technique by
> >> which
> >> > > an unauthorized person may discover its value. A Private Key is
> >> also
> >> > > considered compromised if methods have been developed that can
> >> > easily
> >> > > calculate it based on the Public Key (such as a Debian weak key,
> >> see
> >> > > http://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys)
> >> > > or if there is clear evidence that the specific method used to
> >> > > generate the Private Key was flawed."
> >> > >
> >> > > D. (Issue #21)
> >> > >
> >> > > Add new section 13.2.7: "13.2.7 Certificate Suspension.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Repository MUST NOT include entries that indicate that a
> >> > > Certificate is suspended."
> >> > >
> >> > > E. (Issue #10)
> >> > >
> >> > > Add the following after Appendix A, table (3):
> >> > >
> >> > > "(4) General requirements for public keys: Public keys SHOULD
> >> follow
> >> > > the recommendations of NIST SP 800-73-3
> >> > > <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-78-3/sp800-78-
> 3.pdf
> >> > > <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-78-3/sp800-78-
> >> > 3.pdf%3E
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > RSA: The value of the public exponent MUST be an odd number
> equal
> >> > to 3
> >> > > or more, it SHOULD be in the range 65537 (216+1) to 2256-1."
> >> > >
> >> > > Erratum ends
> >> > >
> >> > > ... Motion ends ...
> >> > >
> >> > > The review period for this ballot shall commence at 21:00 UTC on
> 17
> >> > > October
> >> > > 2012 and will close at 21:00 UTC on 24 October 2012. Unless the
> >> motion
> >> > > is withdrawn during the review period, the voting period will
> start
> >> > > immediately thereafter and will close at 21:00 UTC on 31 October
> >> 2012.
> >> > > Votes must be cast by posting an on-list reply to this thread.
> >> > >
> >> > > ... Motions ends ...
> >> > >
> >> > > A vote in favor of the motion must indicate a clear 'yes' in the
> >> > > response.
> >> > >
> >> > > A vote against must indicate a clear 'no' in the response. A
> vote
> >> to
> >> > > abstain must indicate a clear 'abstain' in the response. Unclear
> >> > > responses will not be counted. The latest vote received from any
> >> > > representative of a voting member before the close of the voting
> >> > > period will be counted.
> >> > >
> >> > > Voting members are listed here:
> >> > http://www.cabforum.org/forum.html
> >> > >
> >> > > In order for the motion to be adopted, two thirds or more of the
> >> votes
> >> > > cast by members in the CA category and one half or more of the
> >> votes
> >> > > cast by members in the browser category must be in favor. Also,
> at
> >> > > least six members must participate in the ballot, either by
> voting
> >> in
> >> > > favor, voting against or abstaining.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sincerely,
> >> > Yngve N. Pettersen
> >> > *******************************************************
> >> > *************
> >> > Senior Developer Email: yngve at opera.com
> >> > Opera Software ASA http://www.opera.com/
> >> > Phone: +47 96 90 41 51 Fax: +47 23 69 24 01
> >> > *******************************************************
> >> > *************
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Public mailing list
> >> > Public at cabforum.org
> >> > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
> > _______________________________________________
> > Management mailing list
> > Management at cabforum.org
> > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management
More information about the Public
mailing list