[cabfpub] SHA-1 Collision Found

Peter Bowen pzb at amzn.com
Fri Feb 24 19:50:26 UTC 2017


> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:58 AM, philliph at comodo.com <mailto:philliph at comodo.com> <philliph at comodo.com <mailto:philliph at comodo.com>> wrote:
> 
> Well as it happens, that is not a problem. 
> 
> * There is a set of FIPS requirements and testing regimes etc. for SHA-3
> * There are HSMs that have met those requirements. 
> 
> What is a concern related to HSMs is that the transition is widely supported so CAs do not have to make major changes to their infrastructure or change suppliers or use different hardware for SHA-3 certificates.
> 
> The availability of HSMs is a concern but it is actually the very last but one on the critical path which is at present
> 
> * NIST issues FIPS (done)
> * IETF publishes specification (started on this)
> * CABForum amends guidelines to permit use
> * Browsers add support
> * HSM vendors ship product
> * CAs issue certificates.
> 
> As indicated before, I believe you have critically misordered these requirements, which may be the source of our disagreement. I do not expect you to agree, but I hope you can understand why, from my perspective, the order is:
> 
> * NIST issues FIPS (done)
> * IETF publishes specification (started on this)
>   * HSM vendors ship product
>   * CABForum amends guidelines to permit use
> * Browsers add support
> * CAs issue certificates.
> 
> That is, I see the HSM discussion happening in parallel to permitting, but I see both as blocking for browsers adding support.

I don’t see why Browsers are blocked from adding support before CABF permits use or HSM vendors ship product.

I think the correct dependencies are as follows:

(1) IETF (or other standards org) publishes specification
(2) HSM vendors ship product (depends on 1)
(3) CABForum permits use (depends on 1 + may depend on 2, assuming HSM req needs to change)
(4) Browsers add support (depends on 1)
(5) Private CAs issue certificates (depends on 1)
(6) Public CAs issue certificates (depends on 2 + 3)
(7) Customers can use certificates (depends on 4 + (5 or 6))

Why do you think browsers are blocked on anything other than #1?

Thanks,
Peter


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170224/e130904a/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list