Wayne, I think this is an excellent idea!
I’d recommend we not wait until the meeting and that the VWG sets up a framework and collaboration site/document/wiki/repository where security experts can start evaluating and documenting the pros and cons of the various methods. Doug From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 2:21 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: [cabfpub] Allocating Time for Review of All Domain Validation Methods at F2F Meeting Gerv and I, with support from Tim as chair of the Validation Working Group, would like to dedicate the entire first day (Tuesday) of the upcoming meeting hosted by Amazon to a “Validation Summit” where security experts help us to review all of the existing domain validation methods. Doing this would push other WG meetings in to time slots on Wednesday or Thursday. I believe there would still be adequate time available for these WG meetings. Given the recent issues discovered with BR 184.108.40.206 methods 1, 5, 9, and 10, a more comprehensive, proactive review of all the BR methods of domain validation is urgently needed. It has been pointed out that this has never been done - the methods as they currently exist are just documentation of existing practices. These methods should be analyzed by experts under an adversarial threat model to identify and address risks and deficiencies. Our proposed agenda for the day is: 1. Discuss the intent of 220.127.116.11. Is proving ownership enough, or is domain control and/or owner consent required? 2. For each of the 10 current methods: a. Introduce the method and discuss what it is intended to validate b. Describe in detail how CAs typically implement the method c. Model and analyze threats to the method d. Discuss improvements to the method e. Decide if the method needs to be improved or discarded, or is acceptable as-is. 3. Time permitting, perform the same analysis on IP address validation methods described in section 18.104.22.168 4. Wrap-up - summarize conclusions and action items We plan to extend an invitation to deeply technical and security minded folks who are familiar with the CA industry and typical CA processes to sign the IPR agreement, become Interested Parties, and attend this portion of the meeting. Given that the meeting is one month from now, we need to move quickly to recruit these experts. Are there any objections to this proposal? I will interpret silence as consent. (And if you think this is a great idea, feel free to tell us!) If you know someone who has the expertise to contribute to this exercise, please consider recruiting him or her to become an Interested Party and attend this meeting. Finally, please consider if your company would sponsor a researcher to attend the meeting in person. My assumption is that at least some of the folks we’d benefit from having in the room will be deterred from attending because they’ll have to cover their own travel expenses. Thanks, Wayne
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public