[cabfpub] BR Enterprise RAs

Rich Smith richard.smith at comodo.com
Fri Jan 17 20:06:42 UTC 2014


Ryan,

As the result of an internal discussion regarding Enterprise RA domain control verification we have determined that the current wording of the BRs requires the CA to verify domain control on each and every certificate request by the enterprise.  My initial opinion was that Section 11.3 would allow an Enterprise to obtain certificates in their verified Domain Namespace for up to 39 months, however Rob pointed out that Section 11.1.1 says:

   "the CA SHALL confirm that, _as of the date the Certificate was

    issued_, the Applicant either is the Domain Name Registrant or has

    control over the FQDN".

Rob's opinion is that "as of the date the Certificate was issued" has to mean something, and to interpret Section 11.3's "39 months" as overriding Section 11.1.1 would render it meaningless.

 

I consider his reasoning sound, but I don't think that was the intent, especially as it would make the BRs more strict in this regard than the EV Guidelines, so that is what this motion is intended to address.  If everyone else is of the opinion that 11.3 is sufficient (and I do think that quite a few CAs are operating under that assumption) then we can leave it alone and move on, but I think the current wording in various sections leaves the issue open to interpretation.

 

-Rich

 

 

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 2:33 PM
To: Rich Smith
Cc: Jeremy Rowley; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] BR Enterprise RAs

 

Rich,

 

Your original proposal didn't quite indicate the problem that you're trying to solve - or at least, the problem as you see it, and instead only presented the solution.

 

Is the issue something to do with the applicable namespace? Is it trying to designate additional entities as Enterprise RAs? 

 

That is, I see a lot of problems with the proposal as written, and rather than trying to dissect them all, I'd like to try and understand what your end-goal is, to see how we can move there.

 

Cheers,

Ryan

 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Rich Smith <richard.smith at comodo.com> wrote:

How about editing both to:

The CA MAY contractually authorize the Subject of a specified Valid Certificate to perform the RA function and authorize the CA to issue additional Certificates at ***the same or higher*** domain levels that are contained within the ***verified Domain Namespace*** of the original Certificate (also known as an Enterprise Certificate).  In such case, the Subject SHALL be considered an Enterprise RA, and the following requirements SHALL apply:

 

*** indicates where I made the changes.

 

-Rich

 

From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 12:58 PM
To: 'Ryan Sleevi'; 'Rich Smith'
Cc: 'CABFPub'
Subject: RE: [cabfpub] BR Enterprise RAs

 

Because the language comes straight from the EV Guidelines.  Maybe we should update both at the same time?

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:26 AM
To: Rich Smith
Cc: CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] BR Enterprise RAs

 

Third or higher is insufficient for most ccTLDs (example.co.uk) or overly broad for gTLDs (foo.example).

Is there a reason you didn't simply refer to the registered domain name (and any preceding labels)?

That also covers the school.k12.wv.us type registrations as well.

On Jan 17, 2014 9:19 AM, "Rich Smith" <richard.smith at comodo.com> wrote:

Colleagues,

In reviewing internal practices and BR compliance, we have discovered that the BRs seem to have a more restricted definition of what an Enterprise RA is allowed than the EV Guidelines.  I think this is due simply to the wording of the BRs rather than specific intent.  Because of that, I would like to propose the following amendment to the BRs.  Please review and let me know if you are willing to endorse.

 

----Motion Begins----

 

Replace:

14.2.4      Enterprise RAs

The CA MAY designate an Enterprise RA to verify certificate requests from the Enterprise RA’s own organization.

The CA SHALL NOT accept certificate requests authorized by an Enterprise RA unless the following requirements are satisfied:

1.    The CA SHALL confirm that the requested Fully-Qualified Domain Name(s) are within the Enterprise RA’s verified Domain Namespace (see Section 7.1.2 para 1).

 

With the following:

14.2.4      Enterprise RAs

The CA MAY contractually authorize the Subject of a specified Valid Certificate to perform the RA function and authorize the CA to issue additional Certificates at third and higher domain levels that are contained within the domain of the original Certificate (also known as an Enterprise Certificate).  In such case, the Subject SHALL be considered an Enterprise RA, and the following requirements SHALL apply:

(1)   An Enterprise RA SHALL NOT authorize the CA to issue an Enterprise Certificate at the third or higher domain levels to any Subject other than the Enterprise RA or a business that is owned or directly controlled by the Enterprise RA;

(2)   In all cases, IF the Enterprise Certificate is to contain Organization details, the Subject of an Enterprise Certificate MUST be an organization verified by the CA in accordance with these Requirements; 

(3)   The CA MUST impose these limitations as a contractual requirement with the Enterprise RA and monitor compliance by the Enterprise RA; and,

(4)   The audit requirements of Section 17.1 of these Requirements SHALL apply to the Enterprise RA, except in the case where the CA maintains control over the Root CA Private Key or Subordinate CA Private Key used to issue the Enterprise Certificates, in which case, the Enterprise RA MAY be exempted from the audit requirements.  In the case that the Enterprise RA is granted a Technically Constrained Subordinate CA Key, Section 17.9 of these audit requirements shall apply to the Enterprise RA.

 

 

-- 

Regards,

Rich Smith

Validation Manager

Comodo

http://www.comodo.com <http://www.comodo.com/> 

 

 


_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140117/b1484862/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6391 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140117/b1484862/attachment-0003.bin>


More information about the Public mailing list