Thank you Ryan, for clearly articulating the concern.

I have updated the draft policy document 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ESakR4MiwyENyuLefyH2wG8rYbtnmG1xeSYvDNpS-EI/edit?usp=sharing>
 
to the following -- changes are in italics below, and highlighted in green 
in the document.
==

keyCompromise (1)

The CRLReason keyCompromise (1) MUST be used when one or more of the 
following occurs:

   - 
   
   the CA obtains verifiable evidence that the certificate subscriber’s 
   private key corresponding to the public key in the certificate suffered a 
   key compromise;
   - 
   
   the CA is made aware of a demonstrated or proven method that exposes the 
   certificate subscriber’s private key to compromise;
   - 
   
   there is clear evidence that the specific method used to generate the 
   private key was flawed;
   - 
   
   the CA is made aware of a demonstrated or proven method that can easily 
   compute the certificate subscriber’s private key based on the public key in 
   the certificate (such as a Debian weak key, see 
   https://wiki.debian.org/TLSkeys <https://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys>); or
   - 
   
   the certificate subscriber, *who has provided proof of possession of the 
   private key**, *requests that the CA revoke the certificate for this 
   reason.
   

*** If the certificate subscriber has not previously provided and can no 
longer provide proof of possession of the private key, they may still 
request revocation due to keyCompromise, and that revocation SHOULD be 
limited in scope to only the certificate issued to that certificate 
subscriber, even if the key in the CSR is used by other certificates.*

*The CRLReason keyCompromise (1) MAY be used when the CA obtains verifiable 
evidence that the certificate was issued to a subscriber who does not own 
or control all of the domain names listed in the certificate. For example;*

   - 
   
   *the certificate subscriber notifies the CA that the original 
   certificate request was not authorized and does not retroactively grant 
   authorization; or*
   - 
   
   *the CA obtains reasonable evidence that the validation of domain 
   authorization or control for any fully‐qualified domain name or IP address 
   in the certificate should not be relied upon.*
   

Otherwise this CRLReason MUST NOT be used.
==

I am having difficulty with this part and will continue to appreciate 
suggestions on how to improve this.

Thanks,
Kathleen



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/25fa980c-0014-4751-a2ef-9c6f86042b91n%40mozilla.org.

Reply via email to