SSC has applied to include three root certificates as follows: enable the email trust bit for the “SSC GDL CA VS Root” certificate; enable the code signing and email trust bits for the “SSC GDL CA Root A” certificate; and enable all three trust bits for the “SSC GDL CA Root B” certificate. EV treatment is also requested for the “SSC GDL CA Root B” certificate.

Skaitmeninio Sertifkavimo Centras (SSC) is a Qualified CA (QCA) and a Trusted Service Provider (TSP) that issues certificates to public institutions, private organizations and natural persons in Lithuania.

The request is documented in the following bug:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=379152

And in the pending certificates list:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs

Summary of Information Gathered and Verified:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8623799

Noteworthy points:

* Documents are provided in Lithuanian and English.

Document Repository: https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/en/repository/documents/
CP: https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/en/repository/documents/certificate-policy-ssc-gdl-ca-v4.4.pdf CPS: https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/en/repository/documents/certificate-practice-statement-ssc-gdl-ca-v4.7.pdf

DRAFT CPS v4.10: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8613560


* CA Hierarchy

** “SSC GDL CA Root A” has two internally-operated Intermediate/Issuing CAs: 1. SSC GDL Class 1 CA -- Issues technically functional certificates with no identity assurances. 2. SSC GDL Class 2-4 QCA -- Issues QCs, SSL/TLS client (authentication/signing/encryption) and CS certificates only to Public.

** “SSC GDL CA Root B” has two internally-operated Intermediate/Issuing CAs:
1. SSC GDL NH CA -- Issues device/e-service certificates including SSL/TLS and CS certificates. 2. SSC GDL EV CA -- Issues exclusively EV SSL and Qualified web site certificates (see section 8 of REGULATION (EU) No 910/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 July 2014).

** “SSC GDL CA VS Root” has one internally-operated Intermediate/Issuing CA:
SSC GDL VS Class 2-4 QCA -- Issues QCs, SSL/TLS client (authentication/signing/encryption) certificates to Government and Public institutions only.


* This request is to enable the email trust bit for the “SSC GDL CA VS Root” certificate; enable the code signing and email trust bits for the “SSC GDL CA Root A” certificate; and enable all three trust bits for the “SSC GDL CA Root B” certificate. EV treatment is also requested for the “SSC GDL CA Root B” certificate.

** CPS section 3.2.2: For an organizational Subject evidence is provided of full name of the organizational entity and reference to a nationally recognized registration. For a device or service operated by or on behalf of an organization, evidence is provided of identifier of the deice/service by which they may be referenced, full name for the organizational entity and a nationally recognized identifier. For certificate issued under EVCP and EVCP+ certificate verification of Applicant’s Identity, including its assumed name, legal, physical and operational existence and Doman Name ownership is performed according to then requirement indicated in [CABF-EV].

** DRAFT CPS v4.10 section 3.2.5: If the Subject of certificate is a service offered via a network, the Applicant must provide identifying information and an acceptable proof of ownership which shall include unique software or service name (e.g. DNS name), service attributes to be included in the certificate, if any, and owner's contact information.
The CA shall validate that the Applicant is:
(a) authorized to request a certificate for the service;
(b) the real owner owner of the service (through an appropriate reliable 3rd party database); (c) able to demonstrate control of the domain (by manipulating DNS records and server configuration).

** CPS section 3.2.6: Information about the Subject, including email address, is included in certificates only after it is reliably verified.

** DRAFT CPS v4.10 section 4: For digital assets whose identifiers are maintained by third parties (e.g. email addresses, domain names etc.) the RA verifies operational existence by directly accessing/using the resource (e.g. a server) or communicating through the resource (e.g. email address) and legal existence - by obtaining independent ownership conformation from the associated registrar.

** CPS section 4.1: For EVCP and EVCP+ certificates extra verification measures are taken as defined in [CABF-EV] to ensure the Subscriber's legal, physical and operational existence. Proof of representation and authority to act on behalf of the Applicant has to be demonstrated in order to authenticate the signatures on EVCP and EVCP+ certificate application forms. … The RA checks that the organization is the legal holder of its name by mapping the information provided in the Extended Validation certificate application with information of official Government Registers (Legal entity DB, TAX payers DB, Social Security DB) that confirms the existence
of the organization.
The RA checks the official postal address of the applicant along with Applicant's main business phone number. In case a technical contact is also the certificate requester with no approval rights, the certificate application form has to be signed by an authorized certificate approver, whose signature has to be verified. The RA communicates with the Certificate signer by phone to ensure validity of authorization. The RA may also communicate with the Certificate signer by postal mail sent to the applicant's place of business.

* EV Policy OID: 2.23.140.1.1

* Root Cert URLs
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/certs/roota.crt
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/certs/rootb.crt
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/certs/rootvs.crt

* Test Website: https://evssl.gdl.ssc.lt/

* Example Certs
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/certs/test-v-class2-4qca.cer
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/certs/test-v-vsclass2-4qca.cer

* CRL
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/crls/nhca.crl
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/crls/evca.crl
http://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/crls/rootb.crl
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/crls/class2-4qca.crl
https://gdl.repository.ssc.lt/crls/vsclass2-4qca.crl

* OCSP
http://nhca.ocsp.gdl.ssc.lt/
http://evca.ocsp.gdl.ssc.lt/
http://rootb.ocsp.gdl.ssc.lt/
http://class2-4qca.ocsp.gdl.ssc.lt/
http://vsclass2-4qca.ocsp.gdl.ssc.lt/

* Audit: SSC is audited annually by TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH according to the ETSI TS 101 456 criteria and ETSI TS 102 042 criteria. QCP public + SSCD: https://www.tuvit.de/data/content_data/tuevit_en/6730UE_s.pdf
EVCP, EVCP+: https://www.tuvit.de/data/content_data/tuevit_en/6729UE_s.pdf

* Potentially Problematic Practices  -- None noted
(http://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices)
** Currently SSC doesn't have third-party RAs, however may have registration partners in the future. *** According to ETSI TS 102 042 Registration service only verifies identity and, if applicable, any specific attributes of a subject. The results of this service are passed to the certificate generation service. So, based on this ETSI definition, RAs are not allowed to issue certificates. Activities of registration service personnel, including those employed by SSC, are constrained/controlled by SSC's RA management software which has no certificate generation/issuing capabilities.

This begins the discussion of the request from SSC to include three root certificates as follows: enable the email trust bit for the “SSC GDL CA VS Root” certificate; enable the code signing and email trust bits for the “SSC GDL CA Root A” certificate; and enable all three trust bits for the “SSC GDL CA Root B” certificate. EV treatment is also requested for the “SSC GDL CA Root B” certificate.

At the conclusion of this discussion I will provide a summary of issues noted and action items. If there are outstanding issues, then an additional discussion may be needed as follow-up. If there are no outstanding issues, then I will recommend approval of this request in the bug.

Kathleen




_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to