[cabf_validation] Section 7.1.2.10.5 CA Certificate Certificate Policies for cross signing certificates

[Tom Zermeno]

SSL.com will endorse this ballot. 

 

Regards,

 

Tom

SSL.com

 

From: Validation <validation-bounces at cabforum.org> On Behalf Of Paul van Brouwershaven via Validation
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 8:22 AM
To: CABforum3 <validation at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Section 7.1.2.10.5 CA Certificate Certificate Policies for cross signing certificates

 

Following yesterday's discussion in the validation subcommittee teleconference, we are now seeking two members to endorse the ballot. Feedback is also welcome, either here or on the pull request.

### Purpose of the Ballot

 

This ballot duplicates the content of section 7.1.2.10.5 (CA Certificate Certificate Policies) into section 7.1.2.2 (Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate Profile) as section 7.1.2.2.6 (Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate Certificate Policies), modifying the requirement from "MUST contain exactly one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier" to "MUST include at least one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier" to allow the inclusion of multiple Reserved Certificate Policy Identifiers in a Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate.

 

The following motion has been proposed by Paul van Brouwershaven (Entrust) and endorsed by XXX (XXX) and XXX (XXX).

 

GitHub pull request for this ballot: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/544 

 

### Motion begins

 

MODIFY the "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates" ("TLS Baseline Requirements") based on Version 2.0.6 as specified in the following redline:

 

https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/929d9b4a1ed1f13f92f6af672ad6f6a2153b8230...89f80028b40ce6a1a5c52b406d37e5534460a1a1

 

### Motion ends

 

This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:

 

Discussion (7+ days)

 

- Start time: TBC

- End time: TBC

 

Vote for approval (7 days)

 

- Start time: TBC

- End time: TBC

  _____  

From: Validation <validation-bounces at cabforum.org <mailto:validation-bounces at cabforum.org> > on behalf of Paul van Brouwershaven via Validation <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 16:40
To: CABforum3 <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cabf_validation] Section 7.1.2.10.5 CA Certificate Certificate Policies for cross signing certificates 

 

We would like to clarify the following requirement in section 7. 1. 2. 10. 5 CA Certificate Certificate Policies, specifically for cross signing certificates. RFC 5280 states that you can have one CertPolicyId within the PolicyInformation, see below: 

We would like to clarify the following requirement in section 7.1.2.10.5 CA Certificate Certificate Policies, specifically for cross signing certificates.

 

RFC 5280 states that you can have one CertPolicyId within the PolicyInformation, see below:

 

certificatePolicies ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF PolicyInformation

 

PolicyInformation ::= SEQUENCE {

        policyIdentifier   CertPolicyId,

        policyQualifiers   SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF

                                PolicyQualifierInfo OPTIONAL }

 

CertPolicyId ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER

 

Section 7.1.2.10.5 of the TLS BR states for the policyIdentifier:

 

The CA MUST include at least one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier (see Section 7.1.6.1) associated with the given Subscriber Certificate type (see Section 7.1.2.7.1) directly or transitively issued by this Certificate.

 

This 'at least one' seems to contradict RFC 5280 which indicates that we can only have one policyIdentifier in the PolicyInformation sequence.

 

Then at the bottom of this section the TLS BRs states that entire certificate policies extension MUST contain exactly one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier:

 

Regardless of the order of PolicyInformation values, the Certificate Policies extension MUST contain exactly one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier.

 

While we can repeat the PolicyInformation within the certificatePolicies extension does this mean that CAs are prohibited from issuing a cross signing certificate (from a multi-purpose root to another multi-purpose root) with policy contrains that include DV, OV and EV reserved certificate policy identifiers. If our reading of this section is correct, this would mean that CAs need to issue three seperate cross signing certificates in that case.

 

Paul

 

 

 

Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete the message from your system. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20240906/4a53b9a6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20240906/4a53b9a6/attachment-0001.p7s>