Ryan,
Thank you for replying as this is a good discussion to have.
“Direct contact” is great method when you don’t have a clean, reliable data
source to validate ownership. For Registrar / CA combos, whereby the same
account ordered the domain and the cert, knowledge of ownership is robust.
Requiring a second contact doesn’t seem more secure, but rather seems more
cumbersome for an already complex process. If you are concerned about the
possibility of a customer account being compromised, it doesn’t change the
risk. If there was a compromise they would have control over DNS and could then
domain validate a cert order from anyone.
Rather than eliminate .1, I believe a better course of action
would be to add transparency and lock down when you can and cannot use the
registrar validation method.
kind regards,
Daymion
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sle...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:42 PM
To: Daymion T. Reynolds <dreyno...@godaddy.com>; CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List <public@cabforum.org>
Cc: Kirk Hall <kirk.h...@entrustdatacard.com>; Tim Hollebeek
<tim.holleb...@digicert.com>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5
Daymion,
Given the proposals so far, do you believe that the 'direct contact' method
satisfies your concerns?
The substantial difference here in the use of .2/.3 vs .1 is that you actually
need to contact the customer for approval prior to issuance. This seems like it
should be an uncontroversially good thing, and not presently required under .1,
as previously demonstrated.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Daymion T. Reynolds via Public
<public@cabforum.org<mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote:
Tim,
I concur with Kirk’s statement about method 1. Method 1 should be
improved, as we should leverage CA/Registrar combos whenever possible. With the
objective being ownership validation, I can’t think of a better method of
knowing who actually owns a domain than to have the same authoritative customer
account order a cert for an owned domain. Performing the account check provides
a high degree of confidence.
Regards,
Daymion
From: Public
[mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org<mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org>] On
Behalf Of Kirk Hall via Public
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 1:10 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek
<tim.holleb...@digicert.com<mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com>>; CA/Browser
Forum Public Discussion List <public@cabforum.org<mailto:public@cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5
Tim, I thought this issue was going to be discussed first by the VWG, as
several CAs have indicated they would like to keep (but improve) Method 1.
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek
via Public
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 11:22 AM
To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List
<public@cabforum.org<mailto:public@cabforum.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5
Ballot 218: Remove validation methods #1 and #5
Purpose of Ballot: Section 3.2.2.4 says that it “defines the permitted
processes and procedures for validating the Applicant’s ownership or control of
the domain.” Most of the validation methods actually do validate ownership and
control, but two do not, and can be completed solely based on an applicant’s
own assertions.
Since these two validation methods do not meet the objectives of section
3.2.2.4, and are actively being used to avoid validating domain control or
ownership, they should be removed, and the other methods that do validate
domain control or ownership should be used.
The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and
endorsed by Ryan Sleevi of Google and Rich Smith of Comodo.
-- MOTION BEGINS –
This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management
of Publicly-Trusted Certificates” as follows, based upon Version 1.5.4:
In Section 3.2.2.4.1, add text at the end: “For certificates issued on or after
March 1, 2018, this method SHALL NOT be used for validation, and completed
validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance of
certificates.”
In Section 3.2.2.4.5, add text at the end: “For certificates issued on or after
March 1, 2018, this method SHALL NOT be used for validation, and completed
validations using this method SHALL NOT be used for the issuance of
certificates.”
In Section 4.2.1, after the paragraph that begins “After the change to any
validation method”, add the following paragraph: “Validations completed using
methods specified in Section 3.2.2.4.1 or Section 3.2.2.4.5 SHALL NOT be
re-used on or after March 1, 2018.”
-- MOTION ENDS –
For the purposes of section 4.2.1, the new text added to 4.2.1 from this ballot
is “specifically provided in a [this] ballot.”
The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
Discussion (7+ days)
Start Time: 2017-01-03 19:30:00 UTC
End Time: Not Before 2017-01-10 19:30:00 UTC
Vote for approval (7 days)
Start Time: TBD
End Time: TBD
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org<mailto:Public@cabforum.org>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public@cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
