Sorry for the misquotation – I left off “*** directly with the Domain Name Registrar,” which is generally what we have been discussing – a WhoIs lookup to see who owns the domain.
But do you see my point that “validating the Applicant as the Domain Contact” (current language) could simply be confirming a hacker in both roles, but would not be validating the Registrant information as to the organization that owns the domain? Which would not be sufficient to include the Registrant Organization name in the O field of an OV or EV cert. That’s why we made the change, which makes Method 1 more secure in our opinion. Again, Method 1 was the original validation method starting in the 1990s, and I think it’s proven its worth over the years. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 11:52 AM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Mads Egil Henriksveen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL] Verification of Domain Contact and Domain Authorization Document On Jan 19, 2018, at 11:23 AM, Kirk Hall <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: First, I think everyone knows what CAs are supposed to do under Method 1 I’m fairly sure this is not the case… , and the lack of misissuance reports means CAs are doing it right. Here’s how Method 1 starts now: “Conforming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by validating the Applicant as the Domain Contact by verifying that: ***” You can see why I think CAs might not know what they’re supposed to do, because the above quote is not the actual words from the the Baseline Requirements! Right now, in BR 1.5.4, Method 1 starts with these words: Confirming the Applicant's control over the FQDN by validating the Applicant is the Domain Contact directly with the Domain Name Registrar. This method may only be used if: Your version prescribes a method. The actual current requirements specify an objective and don’t specify a method. Now, I’m not against prescribing a method, but the method prescribed does need to achieve the original objective, and I think the proposed method is inadequate to do that…
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
