First, let me clarify a mistake. In the previous comments, the version of 
SHECA's CPS was wrong.
The latest version of the cps address is as 
follows:  
https://assets-cdn.sheca.com/documents/UniTrust%20Certification%20Practice%20Statement%20v3.7.8.pdf
In CPS, Section 3.2.2.5 describes the rules for IP address verification, 
and the content is consistent with what I described above.

On Sunday, June 23, 2024 at 1:33:21 AM UTC+8 Alvin Wang wrote:

> On behalf of SHECA, I am responding to the points that need clarification 
> in this discussion.
>
> Thank you, Aaron Gable, for your attention. SHECA immediately reviewed our 
> CPS content after seeing your comment. The latest CPS from SHECA can be 
> found at: 
> https://assets-cdn.sheca.com/documents/sheca-certification-practice-statement-en-v3.6.3.pdf
> .
>
> In the CPS, section 3.2.6 describes the rules for IP address verification:
>
>    - 1.Section 3.2.6 does not state the use of BR 3.2.2.5.4 for IP 
>    verification because this method was prohibited on July 31, 2019.
>    - 2.The section describes SHECA's IP verification methods, where the 
>    second item (1) and (2) corresponds to BR 3.2.2.5.1, and (3) corresponds 
> to 
>    BR 3.2.2.5.3.
>
>
> Huandu is SHECA's distributor (agent) and does not have any authority or 
> responsibility to issue or verify SSL certificates. SHECA's SSL certificate 
> issuance process strictly adheres to BR regulations. 
> All external disclosures regarding SSL certificate verification rules must 
> be conducted through SHECA's CPS, with no other disclosure channels. Huandu 
> published an inaccurate marketing article without SHECA's consent, 
> and we have urgently contacted Huandu to address this issue.
>
> *We hope this clarifies your concerns!*
>
> On Saturday, June 22, 2024 at 12:59:29 AM UTC+8 Aaron Gable wrote:
>
>> The BRs define an Authorized Port as "One of the following ports: 80 
>> (http), 443 (https), 25 (smtp), 22 (ssh)".
>>
>> The UCA Global G2 Root is operated by SHECA, and their CPS 
>> <https://www.sheca.com/repository> says that they use method 3.2.2.5.1, 
>> as well as potentially method 3.2.2.5.4. (It also lists two other methods, 
>> labeled (2) and (3), which do not appear to correspond to BRs-approved 
>> methods.)
>>
>> The BRs say that IP address validation method 3.2.2.5.1 "Agreed-Upon 
>> Change to Website" must occur "via HTTP/HTTPS over an Authorized Port". It 
>> is unclear to me whether using HTTP/HTTPS over port 25 or 22 would be 
>> acceptable given the parenthetical nature of the protocol annotations, even 
>> setting aside the technical hurdle of actually doing so.
>>
>> If we assume that using HTTP/HTTPS over port 25 or 22 is allowed, then I 
>> believe the claim in the linked article could be both accurate and 
>> acceptable by the BRs.
>> If we assume that using HTTP/HTTPS over port 25 or 22 is not allowed, or 
>> if the actual validation conducted by Huandu on behalf of SHECA occurs over 
>> a different port, then I believe the article's claim would not be 
>> acceptable by the BRs.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:33 AM Arabella Barks <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I recently find a Chinese ssl reseller ihuandu.com says they provide a 
>>> ssl product which secures ip address and needn't 80/443 DCV.
>>>
>>> > The SSL certificate does not need to force the use of port 80 or 443 
>>> to verify the public IP management permission, and has a more flexible 
>>> authentication port to help users obtain the SSL certificate of the public 
>>> IP in a relatively short time.
>>>
>>> https://www.ihuandu.com/pr/hddt/771.html
>>>
>>> Does it compliant BR?
>>> The BR defines:
>>> > 3.2.2.5 Authentication for an IP Address
>>> > This section defines the permitted processes and procedures for 
>>> validating the Applicant’s ownership or control of an IP Address listed in 
>>> a Certificate. The CA SHALL confirm that prior to issuance, the CA has 
>>> validated each IP Address listed in the Certificate using at least one of 
>>> the methods specified in this section. Completed validations of Applicant 
>>> authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple Certificates over time. 
>>> In all cases, the validation must have been initiated within the time 
>>> period specified in the relevant requirement (such as Section 4.2.1 of this 
>>> document) prior to Certificate issuance. For purposes of IP Address 
>>> validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, 
>>> Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate. After July 31, 2019, CAs SHALL maintain a 
>>> record of which IP validation method, including the relevant BR version 
>>> number, was used to validate every IP Address.
>>> >
>>> > 3.2.2.5.1
>>> > Agreed‑Upon Change to Website
>>> > Confirming the Applicant’s control over the requested IP Address by 
>>> confirming the presence of a Request Token or Random Value contained in the 
>>> content of a file or webpage in the form of a meta tag under the 
>>> “/.well‐known/pki‐validation” directory, or another path registered with 
>>> IANA for the purpose of validating control of IP Addresses, on the IP 
>>> Address that is accessible by the CA via HTTP/HTTPS over an Authorized 
>>> Port. The Request Token or Random Value MUST NOT appear in the request. If 
>>> a Random Value is used, the CA SHALL provide a Random Value unique to the 
>>> certificate request and SHALL not use the Random Value after the longer of 
>>> i. 30 days or ii. if the Applicant submitted the certificate request, the 
>>> time frame permitted for reuse of validated information relevant to the 
>>> certificate (such as in Section 4.2.1 of this document).
>>> >
>>> > 3.2.2.5.2
>>> > Email, Fax, SMS, or Postal Mail to IP Address Contact
>>> > Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by sending a 
>>> Random Value via email, fax, SMS, or postal mail and then receiving a 
>>> confirming response utilizing the Random Value. The Random Value MUST be 
>>> sent to an email address, fax/SMS number, or postal mail address identified 
>>> as an IP Address Contact. Each email, fax, SMS, or postal mail MAY confirm 
>>> control of multiple IP Addresses. The CA MAY send the email, fax, SMS, or 
>>> postal mail identified under this section to more than one recipient 
>>> provided that every recipient is identified by the IP Address Registration 
>>> Authority as representing the IP Address Contact for every IP Address being 
>>> verified using the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail. The Random Value SHALL 
>>> be unique in each email, fax, SMS, or postal mail. The CA MAY resend the 
>>> email, fax, SMS, or postal mail in its entirety, including re‐use of the 
>>> Random Value, provided that the communication’s entire contents and 
>>> recipient(s) remain unchanged. The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use 
>>> in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The 
>>> CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values, in which case 
>>> the CA MUST follow its CPS. pg. 36
>>> >
>>> > 3.2.2.5.3 Reverse Address Lookup
>>> > Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by obtaining a 
>>> Domain Name associated with the IP Address through a reverse‐IP lookup on 
>>> the IP Address and then verifying control over the FQDN using a method 
>>> permitted under Section 3.2.2.4.
>>> >
>>> > 3.2.2.5.4
>>> > Any Other Method
>>> > Using any other method of confirmation, including variations of the 
>>> methods defined in Section 3.2.2.5, provided that the CA maintains 
>>> documented evidence that the method of confirmation establishes that the 
>>> Applicant has control over the IP Address to at least the same level of 
>>> assurance as the methods previously described in version 1.6.2 of these 
>>> Requirements. CAs SHALL NOT perform validations using this method after 
>>> July 31, 2019. Completed validations using this method SHALL NOT be re‐used 
>>> for certificate issuance after July 31, 2019. Any certificate issued prior 
>>> to August 1, 2019 containing an IP Address that was validated using any 
>>> method that was permitted under the prior version of this Section 3.2.2.5 
>>> MAY continue to be used without revalidation until such certificate 
>>> naturally expires. 3.2.2.5.5 Phone Contact with IP Address Contact 
>>> Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by calling the IP 
>>> Address Contact’s phone number and obtaining a response confirming the 
>>> Applicant’s request for validation of the IP Address. The CA MUST place the 
>>> call to a phone number identified by the IP Address Registration Authority 
>>> as the IP Address Contact. Each phone call SHALL be made to a single 
>>> number. In the event that someone other than an IP Address Contact is 
>>> reached, the CA MAY request to be transferred to the IP Address Contact. In 
>>> the event of reaching voicemail, the CA may leave the Random Value and the 
>>> IP Address(es) being validated. The Random Value MUST be returned to the CA 
>>> to approve the request. The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a 
>>> confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY 
>>> specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.
>>> >
>>> > 3.2.2.5.6 ACME “http‑01” method for IP Addresses
>>> > Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by performing 
>>> the procedure documented for an “http‐01” challenge in RFC 8738.
>>> >
>>> > 3.2.2.5.7 ACME “tls‑alpn‑01” method for IP Addresses
>>> > Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by performing 
>>> the procedure documented for a “tls‐alpn‐01” challenge in RFC 8738.
>>>
>>> And I am curious much about Does it compliant BR(which method are they 
>>> requiring)?
>>> and how they conduct reviews to ensure that the IP website identity is 
>>> not being misused?
>>>
>>> Root CA:
>>> CN = UCA Global G2 Root
>>> O = UniTrust
>>> C = CN
>>>
>>> Intermedia CA:
>>> CN = KeepTrust OV TLS RSA CA G1
>>> O = Shanghai Huandu Info Tech Co. Ltd.
>>> C = CN
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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/8f7dfd56-20dc-4a9f-bea2-1137d9289255n%40mozilla.org
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/8f7dfd56-20dc-4a9f-bea2-1137d9289255n%40mozilla.org?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/d7c366c2-9d4e-4a7d-a14e-20e75b7e754dn%40mozilla.org.

Reply via email to