[cabf_validation] [EXTERNAL] Draft Ballot SCXX: Improve OU validation requirements
sleevi at google.com
Mon Nov 16 08:41:28 MST 2020
As an abstract, I can understand the appeal, but perhaps you'd like to
propose concrete language for how to validate such a relationship, what
sort of formal authorization documents suffice, and of course, the point
that has been avoided numerous times in this thread, the purpose for
relying party applications, such as browsers, to have such information.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:34 AM md--- via Validation <
validation at cabforum.org> wrote:
> I think for public sector/government institutions we should use the
> official name of that organization unit.
> E.g., State XYZ regulatory authority (a legal entity) may act as Data
> Protection Authority.
> As a rule XYZ has a formal authorization document for its DPA role.
> Sent from my Galaxy
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Paul van Brouwershaven via Validation <validation at cabforum.org>
> Date: 11/16/20 17:14 (GMT+02:00)
> To: validation at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] [EXTERNAL] Draft Ballot SCXX: Improve OU
> validation requirements
> I have been thinking about a more simplistic and strict approach that
> doesn't follow all the current allowed methods listed in section 3.2 of the
> BR like we have proposed currently.
> The version below only provides one method that must be followed and
> always requires a prefix/suffix to be added. I don't think it will satisfy
> all use cases, but it should be sufficient for the large majority and might
> be a good compromise:
> *If the Subject Identity Information is to include an organizational unit,
> then it MUST be preceded or followed by a whitespace and an equivalent of
> the word “unit”, “service", "system", "center", "office", “faculty”,
> "administration", "operations” in singular or plural form; or the
> equivalent in a language other than English. It SHALL NOT include a name,
> DBA, tradename, trademark, address, location, or other text that refers to
> a specific natural person or Legal Entity unless the CA has verified this
> information in relation to the Application accordance with Section 3.2.*
> *The CA MUST verify the existence and affiliation of the organizational
> unit with the Applicant using an Organizational Chart provided by an
> authoritative source within the Applicant's organization, such as the
> Applicant's main business offices, corporate offices, human resource
> offices, information technology offices, or other department that the CA
> deems appropriate.*
> *The value SHALL not be abbreviated unless this would exceed the maximum
> length of the `subject:organizationalUnitName` field, in which case it
> SHALL only use locally accepted abbreviation.*
> Feedback and improvements are welcome!
> *From:* Paul van Brouwershaven <Paul.vanBrouwershaven at entrust.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 12:20
> *To:* validation at cabforum.org <validation at cabforum.org>; Paul van
> Brouwershaven <Paul.vanBrouwershaven at entrust.com>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos
> (HARICA) <dzacharo at harica.gr>
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL][cabf_validation] Draft Ballot SCXX: Improve OU
> validation requirements
> We got a lot of positive feedback using private channels, with the large
> majority of CA's indicating that they want to retain the OU field and
> willing to support this proposal.
> Dimitris, you suggested in the virtual meeting 51 to create some “bad
> actor” scenarios, I have translated this into the attached risk register.
> In the register I have suggested to remove item 6 from the proposal as I
> don't think the risk can be mitigated.
> I would like to invite this group to think about these and other risks,
> and if/how they are or can be mitigated.
> *From:* Validation <validation-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of Paul
> van Brouwershaven via Validation <validation at cabforum.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2020 10:39
> *To:* validation at cabforum.org <validation at cabforum.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL][cabf_validation] Draft Ballot SCXX: Improve OU
> validation requirements
> *WARNING:* This email originated outside of Entrust.
> *DO NOT CLICK* links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know
> the content is safe.
> As discussed on the last CA/Browser Forum call last week, we would like to
> retain the OU field. Our enterprise customers have indicated (using a
> survey) to rely on this field for identifying certificate owners in large
> organizations and governments.
> With this (draft) ballot we try to align the
> `subject:organizationalUnitName` with the purpose as described by the ITU-T
> X.520 section 6.4.2 Organizational Unit Name.
> A few explanations, this ballot:
> 1. introduces a requirement to verify the existence and affiliation of
> the unit with the Applicant
> 2. prevents misinterpretations by requiring self-reported values to be
> preceded or followed by a whitespace and the well-known words “department”,
> “division”, “unit” or ...
> 3. supports automation by linking to a directory system of the
> applicant and by allowing well-known pre-approved values such as
> “information technology”, “marketing” or “sales”.
> 4. supports manual validation using authoritative sources, an
> organization charts or public directory (e.g.
> 5. allows values or series as defined by a government, standard, or
> regulatory body
> 6. allows certificate tracking using numerals which can be preceded or
> followed by two alphabetical characters for easier identification.
> Entrust provided a draft ballot redline  to improve the OU validation
> requirements. This is created as a Draft Pull Request to allow others to
> point out issues, and the current fixed commit version is , since 
> will be updated if/as feedback is received.
> I'm curious for feedback on these proposed changes and looking for
> potential endorsers for providing a ballot to the CA/Browser Forum's Server
> Certificate Working Group as a whole.
>  https://github.com/cabforum/documents/pull/225
> Paul van Brouwershaven
> Validation mailing list
> Validation at cabforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Validation