[cabfpub] Misissuance of certificates

Jeremy Rowley jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Thu Jan 14 03:32:37 UTC 2016


Not all malformations are violations of the BRs but most of them are since 7.1.2.4 requires ”All other fields and extensions MUST be set in accordance with RFC 5280.”

 

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Eric Mill
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:24 PM
To: Eneli Kirme
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Misissuance of certificates

 

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Eneli Kirme <Eneli.Kirme at sk.ee <mailto:Eneli.Kirme at sk.ee> > wrote:


There’s also been discussion that malformed certificates are in scope. The problem with these is that not all technical errors have an impact on security and some of them can go unnoticed for quite some time and involve large amounts of certificates.

 

Not all malformations of x.509 certificates are violations of the BRs.

 

If a CA is systematically issuing large tranches of certificates in violation of the BRs, that points to a significant potential security gap in the CA's code and/or audits, regardless of whether the particular discovered technical error poses an immediate security threat to users at that moment.

 

Putting all of them onto the Internet without unified means for automated querying would lower the value of such reporting.

 

I don't think that's true. Bulk data for expert users to sort out, and to potentially design their own search interface for themselves or the public to use, is of high value.

 

-- Eric

 

 

> On 05 Jan 2016, at 17:19, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn at opera.com <mailto:sigbjorn at opera.com> > wrote:
>
> How about the following:
>
> public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>  SHALL be informed about the report. If the CA cannot
> post directly, it SHALL inform questions at cabforum.org <mailto:questions at cabforum.org> , and the CA/B
> Forum chair SHALL forward to the list.
>
> On 05-Jan-16 16:10, Dean Coclin wrote:
>> Commenting on this part:
>>
>> "public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>   SHALL be informed about the report, if the CA cannot
>> post directly, it SHALL inform the CA/B Forum chair who SHALL inform the
>> list."
>>
>> If a CA is not a member of the forum, they won't have public list posting
>> privileges and may not know the email address of the Chair/Vice Chair (they
>> are not posted on our website). Hence I would suggest they email the
>> "questions" list
>>
>> Dean
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>  [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> ] On
>> Behalf Of Sigbjørn Vik
>> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:08 AM
>> To: public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org> 
>> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Misissuance of certificates
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The discussion on this topic seems to have died down, I hope that means we
>> can proceed to a ballot. Anyone willing to endorse?
>>
>> The suggested exception for constrained intermediates did not seem to solve
>> the problem it was intended to solve, and nobody spoke up for it, so I have
>> removed it. The text would then be:
>>
>>
>> 2.2.1 Information of incorrect issuance
>>
>> In the event that a CA issues a certificate in violation of these
>> requirements, the CA SHALL publicly disclose a report within one week of
>> becoming aware of the violation.
>>
>> public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>  SHALL be informed about the report, if the CA cannot
>> post directly, it SHALL inform the CA/B Forum chair who SHALL inform the
>> list.
>>
>> The report SHALL publicize details about what the error was, what caused the
>> error, time of issuance and discovery, and public certificates for all
>> issuer certificates in the trust chain.
>>
>> The report SHALL publicize the full public certificate, with the following
>> exception: For certificates issued prior to 01-Mar-16 the report MAY leave
>> out Subject Distinguished Name fields and subjectAltName extension values.
>>
>> The report SHALL be made available to the CAs Qualified Auditor for the next
>> Audit Report.
>>
>> --
>> Sigbjørn Vik
>> Opera Software
>> _______________________________________________
>> Public mailing list
>> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
>> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>>
>
>
> --
> Sigbjørn Vik
> Opera Software
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org> 
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

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





 

-- 

konklone.com <https://konklone.com>  | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160114/73efdf05/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160114/73efdf05/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Public mailing list