Adriano,

Right now, we're considering the following language:

"ETSI Audit Attestation Letters MUST follow the Audit Attestation Letter
template on the [ACAB'c website](https://www.acab-c.com/downloads), and
ETSI auditors SHOULD be listed as [CAB-members on the ACAB'c website](
https://www.acab-c.com/members/). WebTrust audit statements
MUST follow the practitioner guidance, principles, and illustrative
assurance reports on the [CPA Canada website](
https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/business-and-accounting-resources/audit-and-assurance/overview-of-webtrust-services/principles-and-criteria),
and SHOULD be listed as an enrolled WebTrust practitioner on the [CPA
Canada website](
https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/business-and-accounting-resources/audit-and-assurance/overview-of-webtrust-services/licensed-webtrust-practitioners-international)."


Thanks,

Ben

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 9:03 AM 'Adriano Santoni' via
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> It is not clear to me whether a decision has been made on this matter.
> Would Mozilla please clarify? If this new requirement were introduced in
> the MRSP with immediate effect, it would cause non trivial organizational
> problems for the CAs that are nearing their next audit cycle.
>
> Adriano
>
> ACTALIS S.p.A.
>
>
> Il 03/02/2022 23:31, Ben Wilson ha scritto:
>
> Regarding "Relying on a non-official source for accreditation information
> has its own risks that should be taken seriously." - That isn't how it
> works - in the third column over on https://www.acab-c.com/members/, the
> link is to the official source, which is what we review.
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:16 PM Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 4:03 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The policy requirements should be structured to match the policy goals.
>>> You have mentioned two important ones, which I agree with.  The first can
>>> be solved by requiring the use of ACAB’c templates.  The second points to a
>>> legitimate issue that the NABs/CABs need to solve.  Relying on a
>>> non-official source for accreditation information has its own risks that
>>> should be taken seriously.
>>>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I don't want to belabor this point, but you haven't highlighted if, how,
>> or why you believe WebTrust is different. WebTrust is organizationally and
>> functionally the same as ACAB'c in this regard, as far as professional
>> association goes. Do you believe WebTrust is only valid if the US or
>> Canadian governments recognize it - knowing full well they reject such
>> audits as being insufficient?
>>
>> This reply seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about the
>> role of CABs/NABs, or that there is some value that is not yet articulated.
>> The burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate what this value is - and
>> what these risks are, that you believe should be taken seriously. You have
>> not yet done that.
>>
>>
>>> There’s also no guarantee that ACAB’C membership will be free in the
>>> future.  Organizations change.  ACAB’c could also adopt membership rules
>>> which some organizations are unable to comply with.
>>>
>>
>> Again, how is this functionally different from WebTrust, which charges a
>> licensing fee and which has restrictions on who can join? This is a point
>> that goes back 20 years, in particular, during the discussion of Scott
>> Perry as an auditor who was *not* WebTrust licensed at the time and not
>> a CPA. I mention Scott as an example, because Scott S. Perry is who
>> DigiCert has used as their auditor (and which was recently acquired by
>> Shellman).
>>
>> The argument here does not establish why Mozilla should be concerned
>> about free or not. Similarly, the point that ACAB'c "could" do something is
>> nothing more that unsubstantiated FUD, because it ignores the fact that if
>> there was a negative development, Mozilla - or anyone else - could respond
>> if necessary.
>>
>> As was pointed out internally, ACAB’C is a very small association of
>>> mostly French and German auditors, with very few members.  As much as I
>>> appreciate their work on templates and other issues, I don’t think forcing
>>> people to join another organization is a good thing for organizations to
>>> do, no matter how well-intended it is.  It takes away their agency, which
>>> will certainly put a damper on their desire to participate.
>>>
>>
>> This is the closest we've got to actually establishing the substance of
>> your objection, but it is entirely unclear what bearing it should have on
>> this discussion. By this logic, requiring WebTrust licensed auditors is an
>> equally unacceptable imposition - do you agree or not?
>>
>> Is there some point you believe is being overlooked? This message is full
>> of conclusions, but lacks the logical footing necessary to reach those
>> conclusions. If you think it's being misunderstood, please articulate.
>>
>> The fact that NABs/CABs have not solved this issue, that there has been
>> years of discussion with ETSI, and that fundamentally the organizational
>> goals of NABs/CABs is specifically to support that of Supervisory Bodies,
>> and is not aligned with browser needs, appears to be entirely discarded
>> here. There's zero reason to believe that continuing on the present course
>> is somehow going to lead somewhere differently, other than in the abstract
>> ideal state.
>>
>> I don't disagree that there are arguments being made here, but their
>> arguments that are easily refuted, or which don't logically hold. I hope
>> I'm overlooking something.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "[email protected]" <[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/CA%2B1gtabTpQxDkCexfdYtU0UNs0L0X2EhKxApZF_kOBc9xwaNEA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CA%2B1gtabTpQxDkCexfdYtU0UNs0L0X2EhKxApZF_kOBc9xwaNEA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> 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/00702dfd-ce0a-b204-29f8-395d834a913e%40staff.aruba.it
> <https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/00702dfd-ce0a-b204-29f8-395d834a913e%40staff.aruba.it?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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/CA%2B1gtaa6VRjj2zMCmshFUvfOLH19yqVDRiH1YC2hrnD_H2fyxg%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to