[Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-75 - Pre-sign linting

[Ryan Dickson]

Hi Dimitris, Corey, and Ben,

Thank you for bringing this ballot forward for the group’s consideration.

A few questions:


   - Given the perceived value of linting, should we consider a stronger
   position on its adoption (i.e., MUST versus SHOULD)? While I recognize that
   the Baseline Requirements represent minimum expectations, consistent and
   reliable adoption of linting seems to provide the ecosystem with the best
   chance of addressing the problem statement described in the ballot summary.
      - To accomplish this goal, the ballot could be modified to require
      use of linting (either tbs certificate linting, pre-certificate
linting, or
      final certificate linting), with tbs certificate linting being considered
      RECOMMENDED and final certificate linting as being considered NOT
      RECOMMENDED.
      - This goal could be further realized by either a (1)
      phased-implementation (i.e., SHOULD now, MUST later) - or (2) a
      forward-looking effective date that considers a reasonable timeline for
      adoption for those CA Owners looking to adhere to the BRs that do not
      perform linting today.
   - Is it worth more clearly establishing expectations for the evaluation
   and, when applicable, deployment of updates made by or to linting tools.
   For example, can we establish a reasonable expectation that within 30(?)
   days after an update has been made to a linting tool relied upon by a CA,
   it has either (1) been adopted in the production issuance environment - or
   (2) considered not applicable given the scope of recent updates (for
   example, if a CA only issues DV certificates, and the most recent update
   only pertains to EV certificates, there is no expectation that the updated
   version is deployed).


Thanks for your consideration.

- Ryan


On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 2:04 PM Inigo Barreira via Servercert-wg <
servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Hi Dimitris,
>
>
>
> I don´t know if the “(help to improve)” is adding any additional hidden
> requirement. IMO, I´d remove that.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> *De:* Servercert-wg <servercert-wg-bounces at cabforum.org> *En nombre de *Dimitris
> Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via Servercert-wg
> *Enviado el:* lunes, 20 de mayo de 2024 19:57
> *Para:* CA/B Forum Server Certificate WG Public Discussion List <
> servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
> *Asunto:* [Servercert-wg] Ballot SC-75 - Pre-sign linting
>
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
> SC-75 Pre-sign lintingSummary
>
> There have been numerous compliance incidents publicly disclosed by CAs in
> which they failed to comply with the technical requirements described in
> standards associated with the issuance and management of publicly-trusted
> TLS Certificates. However, the industry has developed open-source tools,
> linters, that are free to use and can help CAs avoid certificate
> misissuance. Using such linters before issuing a precertificate from a
> Publicly-Trusted CA (pre-issuance linting) can prevent the mis-issuance in
> a wide variety of cases.
>
> The following motion has been proposed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos of HARICA
> and endorsed by Corey Bonnell of Digicert and Ben Wilson of Mozilla.
>
> You can view the GitHub pull request representing this ballot here
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fservercert%2Fpull%2F518&data=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7Cba7a2f0fe37e4bb49d7a08dc78f6397c%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638518246126378220%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZzEsOoXvcYi%2F%2BO8TpaYY%2FIP7FV9sVmgn2sXa4fhHMTo%3D&reserved=0>
> .
> Motion Begins
>
> MODIFY the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of
> Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates" based on Version 2.0.4 as
> specified in the following redline:
>
>    -
>    https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5
>    <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabforum%2Fservercert%2Fcompare%2F049237e096650fe01f67780b7c24bd5211ee3038...ada5d6e0db76b32be28d64edd7b0677bbef9c2f5&data=05%7C02%7Cinigo.barreira%40sectigo.com%7Cba7a2f0fe37e4bb49d7a08dc78f6397c%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C638518246126388782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0Yf5qjQ41hV93d91TsZ2PpvnRaK4zysf1UKIW%2Btuqwg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> Motion Ends
>
> This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for
> approval of this ballot is as follows:
> Discussion (at least 7 days)
>
>    - Start time: 2024-05-20 18:00:00 UTC
>    - End time: on or after 2024-05-27 18:00:00 UTC
>
> Vote for approval (7 days)
>
>    - Start time: TBD
>    - End time: TBD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/attachments/20240520/8a3a5f72/attachment.html>