Bonjour, Inline also.
Cordialement, Erwann Abalea Le 1 sept. 2016 à 22:46, Moudrick M. Dadashov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : Bonjour, Erwann, please see below.. On 8/30/2016 12:54 PM, Erwann Abalea wrote: Bonjour, My reading is that 319412-1 lists the different certificate profiles and defines semantic identifiers to be used for natural (in serialNumber) and legal (in organizationIdentifier) persons in other 319412-x profiles when necessary; 319412-2 and -3 are NOT suited to website certificates, 319412-4 is the one to use for websites, 319412-5 specifies requirements for the QCStatements extension. 319412-2: 1 Scope - The present document specifies requirements on the content of certificates issued to natural persons. This profile builds on IETF RFC 5280 [1] for generic profiling of Recommendation ITU-T X.509 | ISO/IEC 9594-8 [i.3]. This profile supports the requirements of EU Qualified Certificates as specified in the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 [i.5] ***as well as other forms of certificate***. The scope of the present document is primary limited to facilitate interoperable processing and display of certificate information. 319412-3: 1 Scope - The present document specifies a certificate profile for certificates issued to legal persons. The profile defined in the present document builds on requirements defined in ETSI EN 319 412-2 [2]. The present document supports the requirements of EU qualified certificates as specified in the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 [i.3] ***as well as other forms of certificate***. That’s right. But 319412-4 exclusively scopes web site certificates (and explicitly references CABFBR+EVG, and 319412-1 and 319412-5); 319412-2 and -3 don’t mention CABForum, BR or EVG, don’t make any reference to 319412-4, and can produce non-CABF-compliant certificates if you follow them. I then think it’s safe to argue that 319412-2 and -3 must not be followed to produce « web site certificates » (well, at least, not public ones, for whatever « public » means). 319412-4 basically says « follow CABF BR for website certificates issued to legal or natural persons, or CABF EVG for website certificates issued to legal persons, and if the certificate is Qualified, add the QCStatements extension as described in 319412-5 » (you can also add the QCStatements extension in a non Qualified certificate). Indeed. BR in section 7.1.4.2.2 lists the attributes found in the subject name, and its item (i) allows for other attributes. So you can add a serialNumber or organizationIdentifier attribute, it’s BR-compliant. Ballot 175 (if/when adopted) will clarify the givenName/surName presence, which should be fine. Right, but the BR/EVG vs ETSI (id-etsi-qcs-SemanticsId triggered) serial number have different syntax (and possible values). Do we know any browsers supporting this today? I don’t see it as a problem. EV and « legal persons » certificates. EVG: serialNumber+jurisdiction*Name EVG+EN319412-1: serialNumber+jurisdiction*Name, AND organizationIdentifier The serialNumber attribute won’t change. In the unlikely situation where a browser tried to validate the content and/or syntax of this attribute, since you don’t change it, there’s no problem; you’re only adding another attribute. This one having been defined in 2012, some browsers will probably display it with its OID instead of the name. OV and « legal persons » certificates. BR: nothing BR+EN319412-1: organizationIdentifier IV and « natural persons » certificates. BR: nothing BR+EN319412-1: serialNumber You’re just adding an attribute here, no conflict. At the end we have two certs issued to the same Subject by the same CA with different (serial number) notations and most probably different values. How about harmonizing this? Requiring all CAs to follow ETSI EN 319412-1? Won’t work ;) And even following 319412-1, a CA can produce two certificates to the same entity with different values and/or notations (semanticsId is not mandatory). Thanks, M.D. EVG in section 9.2 does the same for EV certificates, and section 9.2.8 also allows other attributes to be filled in. You’re then allowed to add the organizationIdentifier attribute, in addition to the already present serialNumber. See them as duplicate information (organizationIdentifier contains jurisdiction*Name and serialNumber altogether, in a sense). BR in section 7.1.2 sets requirements on certificate extensions, and section 7.1.2.4 allows for other extensions to be added. So the QCStatements extension can be added if you want, considering that you (as a CA) are « aware of a reason for including the data in the Certificate », and that this extension will not « mislead a Relying Party about the Certificate information verified by the CA ». Cordialement, Erwann Abalea Le 30 août 2016 à 02:30, Moudrick M. Dadashov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : Right, the question is whether the Subject field value, presented in accordance with id-etsi-qcs-SemanticsId, remains BR/EVG compliant. Thanks, M.D. On 8/29/2016 10:10 PM, Erwann Abalea wrote: (sent from home, this will not go to public, unless you forward it) It depends. If the QCStatement extension declares the id-etsi-qcs-SemanticsId-Natural semantics identifier, then yes, the serialNumber will contain the passport number, IDcard number, or other (there's a list in EN 319412-1). The data contained in this attribute is structured. For example, for me, this serialNumber will be "PASFR-07CL42154" if I present my french passport. This information is not sensitive. If there's no semantics identifier declared in the QCStatements extension, or if this extension is missing, the serialNumber is local to the CA. And of course, a relying party would have to ask the CA to point to the right "Robert Smith" individual. That doesn't fit well with web server certificates... Even if the serialNumber contains a global identifier (such as passport), the probability that as a user I can compare the passport number found in the certificate to the real passport number of Robert Smith is hardly higher than zero. 2016-08-29 20:36 GMT+02:00 Kirk Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: Erwann, you mention the serialNumber attribute for a natural person – I assume this is not a Social Security number or other sensitive information? But if each CA assigns its own serialNumber for the same (or different) “Robert Smith,” I don’t see how a user can figure out which Robert Smith it is dealing with… From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Erwann Abalea Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 1:47 AM To: Moudrick M. Dadashov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] givenName and surname revived That’s easily done for a certificate issued to a legal person if you really need it: - EN 319412-4 asks you to follow CABF BR or EVG, which don’t prevent you from adding other attributes or extensions - add the organizationIdentifier attribute formatted as described in EN 319412-1 section 5.1.4 - add a QCStatements extension containing the qcStatement-2 QC-STATEMENT (as defined in RFC3739), and populate the semanticsIdentifier element with the id-etsi-qcs-SemanticsId-Legal OID Same goes for a certificate issued to a natural person, just use the serialNumber attribute instead of the organizationIdentifier, fill it according to EN 319412-1 section 5.1.3, use id-etsi-qcs-SemanticsId-Natural OID as the semantics identifier. Of course, you’re not REQUIRED to produce eIDAS compliant certificates. Cordialement, Erwann Abalea Le 24 août 2016 à 15:05, Moudrick M. Dadashov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : eIDAS Article 3 (38): ‘certificate for website authentication’ means an attestation that makes it possible to authenticate a website and links the website to the natural or legal person to whom the certificate is issued; Thanks, M.D. On 8/24/2016 1:08 PM, Adriano Santoni wrote: But givenName and surname are not sufficient to specify an identity. How many Robert Smiths exist in UK/US/CA ? (or Mario Rossi in Italy, as to that). If I would like to know who's behind a web site whose SSL cert contains giveName=John, surname=Doe, I am none the wiser. Il 23/08/2016 20:02, Bruce Morton ha scritto: OK, thanks. Bruce. From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 6:16 PM To: Bruce Morton <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: givenName and surname revived What do you mean by definition? I consider IV v. OV well defined because of the meaning associated with the OID inserted into the cert. Section 7.1.6.1 states “ {joint‐iso‐itu‐t(2) international‐organizations(23) ca‐browser‐forum(140) certificate‐policies(1) baseline‐requirements(2) individual‐validated(3)} (2.23.140.1.2.3), if the Certificate complies with these Requirements and includes Subject Identity Information that is verified in accordance with Section 3.2.3.” Section 3.2.3 is verification of an individual whereas Section 3.2.2 is verification of an organization. Jeremy From: Bruce Morton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 6:11 AM To: Jeremy Rowley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: givenName and surname revived Hi Jeremy, My apologies, but can you clarify the section where IV certs are well defined? I see that “individual-validated” is stated twice in sections 1.2 and 7.1.6.1 (the same for domain-validated and organization-validated), but I can’t find the definition. Thanks, Bruce. From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:41 AM To: Bruce Morton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: givenName and surname revived Hey Bruce – IV certs are well defined. The goal of the ballot isn’t to further define IV certs but to permit use of the givenName and surname fields for IV certs. giveName and surname in the org field would be allowed. They’d still use the IV OIDs as they were validated under the IV section of the CP. From: Bruce Morton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:41 AM To: Jeremy Rowley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: givenName and surname revived Hi Jeremy, Would like some clarification. On the call yesterday, it was said that IV certificates were not defined, so this ballot will help resolve this. Per 7.1.4.2.2 b, the current BRs allow givenName and surname to be included in the organizationName field. Will this still be allowed? If so, what would the certificate type be? OV or IV? I would prefer that these be OV certificates. If we do make the changes and the CAs have to meet Microsoft’s requirement to put a DV, OV, or IV certificate policy in the certificate, I think we should clearly define each certificate type. Also, the stateOrProvinceName field appears to currently have an issue as it does not have any language to address the case where there is no state or province in the address. Thanks, Bruce. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rowley Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:09 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [cabfpub] givenName and surname revived Looking for two endorsers for the following revisions the baseline requirements adding support for givenName and surname: Insert a new (C) under 7.1.4.2.2, renumbering all subsequent bullets. c. Certificate Field: subject:givenName (2.5.4.42) and subject:surname (2.5.4.4) Optional. Contents: If present, the subject:givenName field and subject:surname field MUST contain an natural person Subject’s name as verified under Section 3.2.3. A Certificate containing a subject:givenName field or subject:surname field MUST contain the (2.23.140.1.2.3) Certificate Policy OID. d. Certificate Field: Number and street: subject:streetAddress (OID: 2.5.4.9) Optional if the subject:organizationName field, subject: givenName field, or subject:surname field areis present. Prohibited if the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName, and subject:surname field are is absent. Contents: If present, the subject:streetAddress field MUST contain the Subject’s street address information as verified under Section 3.2.2.1. e. Certificate Field: subject:localityName (OID: 2.5.4.7) Required if the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName field, or subject:surname field are ispresent and the subject:stateOrProvinceName field is absent. Optional if thesubject:stateOrProvinceName field and the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName field, or subject:surname field are present. Prohibited if the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName, and subject:surname field are is absent. Contents: If present, the subject:localityName field MUST contain the Subject’s locality information as verified under Section 3.2.2.1. If the subject:countryName field specifies the ISO 3166‐1 user‐assigned code of XX in accordance with Section 7.1.4.2.2(g), the localityName field MAY contain the Subject’s locality and/or state or province information as verified under Section 3.2.2.1. f. Certificate Field: subject:stateOrProvinceName (OID: 2.5.4.8) Required if the subject:organizationName field field, subject:givenName field, or subject:surname field are is present and the subject:localityName field is absent. Optional if the subject:localityName field and the subject:organizationName field, the subject:givenName field, or subject:surname field are present. Prohibited if the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName field , or subject:surname field are isabsent. Contents: If present, the subject:stateOrProvinceName field MUST contain the Subject’s state or province information as verified under Section 3.2.2.1. If the subject:countryName field specifies the ISO 3166‐1 user‐assigned code of XX in accordance with Section 7.1.4.2.2(g), the subject:stateOrProvinceName field MAY contain the full name of the Subject’s country information as verified under Section 3.2.2.1. g. Certificate Field: subject:postalCode (OID: 2.5.4.17) Optional if the subject:organizationName, subject:givenName field, or subject:surname fields are ispresent. Prohibited if the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName field, or subject:surname field are is absent. Contents: If present, the subject:postalCode field MUST contain the Subject’s zip or postal information as verified under Section 3.2.2.1. h. Certificate Field: subject:countryName (OID: 2.5.4.6) Required if the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName , or subject:surname field is present. Optional if the subject:organizationName field, subject:givenName field, and subject:surname field are isabsent. Contents: If the subject:organizationName field is present, the subject:countryName MUST contain the two‐letter ISO 3166‐1 country code associated with the location of the Subject verified under Section 3.2.2.1. If the subject:organizationName, subject:givenName field, and subject:surname field are is absent, the subject:countryName field MAY contain the two‐letter ISO 3166‐1 country code associated with the Subject as verified in accordance with Section 3.2.2.3. If a Country is not represented by an official ISO 3166‐1 country code, the CA MAY specify the ISO 3166‐1 user‐assigned code of XX indicating that an official ISO 3166‐1 alpha‐2 code has not been assigned. i. Certificate Field: subject:organizationalUnitName Optional. Contents: The CA SHALL implement a process that prevents an OU attribute from including a name, DBA, tradename, trademark, address, location, or other text that refers to a specific natural person or Legal Entity unless the CA has verified this information in accordance with Section 3.2 and the Certificate also contains subject:organizationName, subject:givenName, subject:surname, subject:localityName, and subject:countryName attributes, also verified in accordance with Section 3.2.2.1. 7.1.6.1 … If the Certificate asserts the policy identifier of 2.23.140.1.2.1, then it MUST NOT include organizationName, givenName, surname, streetAddress, localityName, stateOrProvinceName, or postalCode in the Subject field. … _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public -- Cordiali saluti, Adriano Santoni ACTALIS S.p.A. (Aruba Group) _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public -- Erwann.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
