[Servercert-wg] [External Sender] Re: Re: Discussion Period Begins - Ballot SC-080 V1: "Sunsetting use of WHOIS to identify Domain Contacts"
Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)
dzacharo at harica.gr
Wed Sep 18 16:27:49 UTC 2024
On 18/9/2024 12:14 μ.μ., Q Misell via Servercert-wg wrote:
>
> Consulting with the IANA registrar falls apart when a reseller is
> involved. Sometimes the correct contact data is held by a reseller not
> the registrar of record.
>
> I don't think we should allow validation based on Registration
> Directory Services <https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/U0u4dSeajXbodURp>
> knowing how unreliable they can be.
This seems overly subjective. Resellers exist whether we like it or not.
They convince Domain Owners to use their services and then act on behalf
of them. For certificate lifecycle management, this has been discussed
multiple times and I recall that the result was that it is practically
impossible for a CA to distinguish beyond reasonable doubt whether it is
dealing with an Applicant/Domain Owner or a reseller operating on behalf
of that Domain Owner.
In the WHOIS paradigm, resellers already have access to "do bad things"
with the Base Domain Name they register and manage, so they could
obviously abuse their position and issue a TLS Certificate to Domain
Names using ANY validation method under 3.2.2.4.
Dimitris.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and
> are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically
> stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13
> Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca
> Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574
> <https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/9RSVdvm0MrsRNsbs>, LEI
> 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876
> <https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/KbjUXXJAKmBFs6zI>. UK VAT №:
> GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South
> Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered
> office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1,
> 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia
> under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the
> Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474
> and № UK00003718468, respectively.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Sept 2024 at 10:59, Amir Omidi via Servercert-wg
> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> I do not agree. What’s the point of keeping this bespoke method
> available? These options create complexity and complexity creates
> security vulnerabilities. In what situation would this method be
> useful where DNS currently can’t solve that need?
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 04:56 Adriano Santoni via Servercert-wg
> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> I agree if by "WHOIS-related" methods we mean any method based
> on the WHOIS protocol, either directly or via protocol
> gateways (e.g. web-based interfaces to WHOIS records). And I
> support the WHOIS deprecation initiative in this sense, since
> it has been shown that it may be unreliable.
>
> However, where the domain contacts information is obtained,
> e.g. via the web, from an IANA-accredited domain registrar and
> is *not* based on WHIOS, then I think it can be used.
> I assume everyone agrees as long as no one raises a hand to
> object.
>
>
> Adriano
>
> Il 17/09/2024 18:04, Pedro FUENTES ha scritto:
>> Could it be that we all agree that WHOIS-related method are
>> so tricky that it deserves to be ditched and the only thing
>> to requires consensus is the deadline to apply?
>>
>> On my particular side, I personally consider that 1/1/2025 is
>> a reasonable date.
>>
>>> Le 17 sept. 2024 à 17:59, Adriano Santoni via Servercert-wg
>>> <servercert-wg at cabforum.org>
>>> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org> a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> I was not referring to any WHOIS server, but rather to the
>>> information about domain "owners" that a registrar is
>>> supposed to collect and keep.
>>>
>>> So you believe that if a CA does the following, the domain
>>> contact email they can (sometimes) get is /unreliable/?
>>>
>>> 1) Consult the list of accredited domain registrars on the
>>> IANA website (https://www.icann.org/en/accredited-registrars
>>> <https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/H1JzZCLPVSEY13XJ>), thus
>>> finding confirmation of one particular registrar's website
>>> the CA was looking for.
>>> 2) Access the website found in point 1 above and query the
>>> information available on a certain domain.
>>> 3) At this point, sometimes (rarely) obtain, among other
>>> information, also the email address of a domain contact.
>>>
>>> Note that here I'm not talking about the WHOIS protocol nor
>>> WHOIS servers, but about the information that the domain
>>> registrar has the duty to collect and store (not necessarily
>>> publish) about the subject who registered a domain.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Adriano
>>>
>>>
>>> Il 17/09/2024 17:13, Andrew Ayer ha scritto:
>>>> [NOTICE: Pay attention - external email - Sender isagwa at andrewayer.name ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 07:21:28 +0000
>>>>
>>>> Adriano Santoni via Servercert-wg<servercert-wg at cabforum.org> <mailto:servercert-wg at cabforum.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I believe that the /interactive
>>>>>
>>>>> /query of the domain registrar, directly on its website, can be
>>>>>
>>>>> considered reliable to the extent that the CA is confident that it is in
>>>>>
>>>>> fact consulting the "right" website.
>>>>>
>>>> CAs were not consulting the right WHOIS server, despite a database of
>>>>
>>>> correct WHOIS servers existing (at least for gTLDs). How would the problem
>>>>
>>>> be better when it comes to finding the "right" website?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The gTLD registry agreement requires gTLD operators to update the IANA
>>>>
>>>> Rootzone Database when their WHOIS server changes; I don't see a
>>>>
>>>> similar requirement for keeping a database of website URLs up-to-date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Servercert-wg mailing list
>>> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cabforum.org_mailman_listinfo_servercert-2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-bX5hBm1IdRDykQ-dBR8tsFRCM4v1VXUyG7RZa2WqPY&m=IqgVx_nvAxgc9vUVg8d2gCn7R7eMqKPCSgoIW6If9F-DHYck2BXkEdTactbQnmGx&s=TSpgJKJi2JL8yKR40EYmCep1QcQe0Ueo8VaHzA2ijT0&e=
>>> <https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/nFNVYlUfxuxcg038>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
> <https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/3ZZB5DEI1xwMn0DE>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
> <https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/JXP5t0JjVxRBmGcU>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240918/757f260b/attachment.html>
More information about the Servercert-wg
mailing list