AIUI, the latest published version of a root store policy always takes 
precedence over (1) draft updates to that policy, (2) language proposed for 
public discussion by the policy's owner, and (3) expressions of intent by the 
policy's owner that are at odds with the latest published policy language.  
With that in mind...

Clint, thanks for confirming that Ben's proposed language matches the intent of 
the similar Apple Root Program requirement.  Do you plan to update 
https://www.apple.com/certificateauthority/ca_program.html before October 1st, 
so that the Apple Root Program's effective policy for CRL URL disclosures 
matches your intent?
The current language - "for each included CA Certificate and each CA 
Certificate chaining up to an included CA Certificate in the Apple Root 
Program" - leaves no room for a "before the CA signs certificates" carve-out, 
and there's also no permission for any delay between the issuance of a 
Subordinate CA Certificate and the disclosure of its CRL URL(s).

Ben, thanks for proposing some language for discussion.  Do you plan to 
(quoting you) "modify MRSP section 4.1 to more clearly indicate when full CRLs 
need to be added to the CCADB" before October 1st?
The current language in 
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/security-group/certs/policy/#41-additional-requirements
 leaves no room for a "before the CA signs certificates" carve-out, and there's 
no permission for any delay between the issuance of a Subordinate CA 
Certificate and the disclosure of its CRL URL(s).

Alternatively...
If Mozilla's and Apple's intended policies are aligned on these matters, would 
it be better to add the language to 
https://www.ccadb.org/policy#4-intermediate-certificates and then update both 
the MRSP and https://www.apple.com/certificateauthority/ca_program.html to 
defer to the CCADB Policy?

________________________________
From: 'Clint Wilson' via [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 18:31
To: Ben Wilson
Cc: Christophe Bonjean; MDSP
Subject: Re: CRL Issuance Frequency for non-published CRLs

Hi all,

FWIW, the below language also matches the intent of the similar Apple Root 
Program requirement.

Thanks,
-Clint

On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Ben Wilson 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi Christophe,

We do want to maintain some flexibility here and to mirror current practices 
without creating new unnecessary requirements.  We could modify MRSP section 
4.1 to more clearly indicate when full CRLs need to be added to the CCADB.  For 
discussion, the language could be something like, "Full CRL URLs MUST be 
provided in the CCADB before the CA signs certificates, or if it is already 
signing certificates, then within 7 days of disclosing the CA certificate in 
the CCADB."

Thoughts?

Ben



On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:33 PM Christophe Bonjean 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:

Hi Ben,



There’s a few CA and CRL lifecycle events linked to this change:

  1.  T= 0 : CA creation
  2.  T= 0 + a: CRL URL assignment (not yet publishing CRLs)
  3.  T = max 7 days: CA disclosure in CCADB (section 5.3.2)
  4.  T = 7 days + b: CRL disclosure in CCADB (section 4.1)
  5.  T = 7 days + c: First CRL published
  6.  T = d: First certificate issued from CA (with CRL in certificate profile)



The proposed change to section 4.1 means that CRLs need to be published as soon 
as they are being disclosed in CCADB.



In some cases, CAs are generated a while before they are used, for example TLS 
CAs that we rotate on a quarterly basis. In that case, CRLs will only be 
published close to the when the CA becomes operational.



It seems the timeline to populate the CRL information in CCADB is currently 
flexible and supports this approach (i.e. populating and publishing the CRL a 
while after the CA is disclosed).



Is this the correct understanding? If there’s a different interpretation or 
intention to restrict this timeline in the future, we would like to further 
discuss.



Thanks



Christophe



From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On 
Behalf Of Ben Wilson
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 17:03
To: Corey Bonnell 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Aaron Gable <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: CRL Issuance Frequency for non-published CRLs



All,



Mozilla's position is that adding CRL URLs to the CCADB (as required effective 
Oct. 1, 2022, by MRSP section 
4.1<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/security-group/certs/policy/#41-additional-requirements>)
 will be considered "publishing" them because we will be relying on that 
information in the CCADB to operate CRLite. I have added Issue 
#251<https://github.com/mozilla/pkipolicy/issues/251> to GitHub to address this 
issue more precisely in the next version of the Mozilla Root Store Policy. For 
this, we will use the timeframes from section 4.9.7 of the Baseline 
Requirements, "the CA SHALL update and reissue CRLs at least once every seven 
days ...." (In the future, we might want to see that time frame shortened.)



Thanks,



Ben Wilson

Mozilla Root Store Program





On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 1:08 PM 'Corey Bonnell' via 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi Aaron,



> As long as we do not publish the CRLs, they are not required to be updated on 
> specific timetables.



My understanding is that absent the inclusion of a URI in a CRLDP extension of 
a Certificate that is subject to the BRs or some other Root Program 
requirement, there is no obligation by the CA to publish and update CRL-based 
revocation information on any specific cadence.



Given this, I believe that it’s compliant to not publish CRLs that are signed 
by the CA.



Thanks,

Corey



From: 'Aaron Gable' via 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 4:10 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: CRL Issuance Frequency for non-published CRLs



Hi MDSP,



Section 4.9.7 of the Baseline Requirements says (emphasis added):



> If the CA publishes a CRL, then the CA SHALL update and reissue CRLs at least 
> once every seven days, and the value of the nextUpdate field MUST NOT be more 
> than ten days beyond the value of the thisUpdate field.



Let's Encrypt is currently in the final stages of standing up infrastructure to 
issue and publish CRLs, in compliance with the upcoming Apple and Mozilla root 
program requirements that go into effect on October 1st.



As with many systems, we would like to test this as thoroughly as possible 
prior to making it fully available. Of course we're already running it in our 
non-production environment with an untrusted hierarchy of issuers. But there's 
a risk that, if we were to run the new infrastructure in our production 
environment and discover some sort of fault, we would not be able to turn it 
off again due to the reissuance and update requirements.



It is our interpretation of the above-quoted text from Section 4.9.7 that this 
risk does not actually exist. As long as we do not publish the CRLs, they are 
not required to be updated on specific timetables.



Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? Are there other requirements 
that I'm missing that would prevent us from turning the new infrastructure off?



Thanks,

Aaron

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CAEmnErfY4g7_6yz%2BLZ-mO0k_bDaSrxy4d9AJ8O8BQD-Et888tA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CAEmnErfY4g7_6yz%2BLZ-mO0k_bDaSrxy4d9AJ8O8BQD-Et888tA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/DM6PR14MB2186BFE4B53C139E80C133DC929E9%40DM6PR14MB2186.namprd14.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/DM6PR14MB2186BFE4B53C139E80C133DC929E9%40DM6PR14MB2186.namprd14.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CA%2B1gtab97PjAttWujLsH7YX1L%2B5j8cNruEaq1kBFPz5AECq4eQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CA%2B1gtab97PjAttWujLsH7YX1L%2B5j8cNruEaq1kBFPz5AECq4eQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CA%2B1gtabYw%3D51CmBZ9b96MnGmo3u4z6GOSQwj0iurMtg%2BsjMrgQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CA%2B1gtabYw%3D51CmBZ9b96MnGmo3u4z6GOSQwj0iurMtg%2BsjMrgQ%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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/08421678-D612-45E7-B05A-A35FD9E68A89%40apple.com<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/08421678-D612-45E7-B05A-A35FD9E68A89%40apple.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/MW4PR17MB47293250BBE6724EB1C27381AA4F9%40MW4PR17MB4729.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.

Reply via email to