+1
S/MINE is very very important for personal email privacy protection and for 
commercial email too.


Regards,

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: dev-security-policy 
[mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Kai Engert
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:28 PM
To: mozilla-dev-security-policy 
<[email protected]>
Subject: A pragmatic solution for the S/MIME trust bit

The earlier comments on this list have shown that S/MIME is in active use 
(e.g.
in communication between different academic instutions), and that a decision 
to remove the S/MIME trust bit from the Mozilla CA list would mean a 
functional regression for those users.

In my opinion, the discussion about the quality of the S/MIME code in NSS or 
in Thunderbird should be completely separate from the discussion about the 
trust bit, because there is non-Mozilla open source software that is able to 
make use that trust bit, too (e.g. OpenSSL also has an implementation for 
S/MIME).

I don't know if we'll find sufficient resources to start a separate CA program 
for the S/MIME trust bit. It seems that the lobby for encrypted email is much 
weaker than the lobby for web site security, maybe because it isn't used to 
sell products or content to consumers.

Nevertheless, I believe that supporting privacy in communication between 
individuals is an important value. The publicly agreed list of CA certificates 
is a very helpful resource that makes it easier for any new project that wants 
to buildon upson PKI for that purpose.

Therefore I'd like to suggest that we attempt to find a pragmatic solution how 
the S/MIME trust bit could be kept alive with a minimal amount of resources on 
top of the great work for the SSL/TLS trust bit.

Here is an attempt of a starting point for a programtic solution:


(a) Only grant the S/MIME trust bit if a CA has been granted the SSL/TLS
    trust bit already.

If Mozilla decides to remove a SSL/TLS trust bit, the S/MIME trust bit (and 
potentiall all other trust bits) for that CA will get removed, too.

This eliminates the need to work on any CAs that are for the S/MIME purpose, 
only.


(b) Only CAs that explicitly state they'd like to be granted the S/MIME
    trust bit might potentially get it.

This avoids the likelyhood that any CA's root gets accidentally used for the 
non -SSL/TLS purpose.


(c) The community on this list works together to define what additional
    requirements a CA needs to comply with, in order to obtain the
    S/MIME trust bit.

The definitions of these additional requirements should be kept completely 
separate from the SSL/TLS trust bit documents, to allow participants of the 
S/MIME trust bit community to work independently.


(d) Going forward, require that no intermediate certificate will ever be used 
to
    issue certificates for SSL/TLS servers and S/MIME.

This is simply an idea to address an argument that has been made in the 
discussion, that it might be problematic to mix issueing environments.

However, for practical purposes, I'd suggest it should still be allowed to 
issue certificates that can be used for both S/MIME and SSL/TLS client 
authentication.


(e) Discuss if a misissuance of S/MIME certificates can have the consequence
    of losing the SSL/TLS trust bit, too.


With an approach like this, the work required to evaluate the request of a CA 
for the S/MIME trust bit would be limited to:

(1) A one time effort to define (c), and ocassionally the refinement of (c),
    mainly driven by the community, and someone who will make the final call.

(2) Someone who evaluates the inclusion requests and compliance with (c).


Everyone, would a policy like this make sense?

Kathleen, do you think a policy like this would still require a half time 
position for the "someone" mentioned in (1) and (2), or could it be done with 
a smaller amount of time? Could the CAs be required to do most of the work to 
demonstrate their compliance, and only require the dedicated person to verify 
the documentation for plausability?

Thanks,
Kai

_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to