On 2016-11-14 12:46, Gervase Markham wrote:
Hi all,
RFC 6962bis (the new CT RFC) allows certs below technically-constrained
sub-CAs (TCSCs) to be exempt from CT. This is to allow name privacy.
TCSCs themselves are also currently exempt from disclosure to Mozilla in
the Common CA Database.
If this is the only privacy mechanism available for 6962bis, I suspect
we will see a lot more TCSCs about, particularly if CAs figure out ways
to mint them at scale within the letter of the BRs and other requirements.
CT is getting to be very useful as a way of surveying the certificate
ecosystem. This is helpful to assess the impact of proposed policy
changes or positions, e.g. "how many certs don't have an EKU", or "how
many certs use a certain type of crypto". If certs under TCSCs are
exempt and this becomes popular, CT would become less useful for that.
One possible answer is just to say: "Mozilla will not accept 'but we
have a lot of certs under TCSCs which will be affected by this' as a
valid reason not to do something. In other words, if you hide stuff and
it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. But in practice, such a line
might not hold.
Thoughts and suggestions?
Before there was CT, we already made decisions based on those
certificates that we actually get to see based on various ways to see
them. It's also not because they won't be required to be in CT they
won't end up in CT, either because they really don't have a reason to
hide them or that other people that saw the certificate added them.
Kurt
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
