Bylaw 2.4(a) says the following: “***If the Draft Guideline Ballot is proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, such ballot will include a redline or comparison showing the set of changes from the Final Guideline section(s) intended to become a Final Maintenance Guideline, and need not include a copy of the full set of guidelines. Such redline or comparison shall be made against the Final Guideline section(s) as they exist at the time a ballot is proposed, and need not take into consideration other ballots that may be proposed subsequently, except as provided in Section 2.4(j) below.”
I’m inclined to agree with Wayne, and it’s certainly hard to evaluate the ballot language without pulling out a copy of the NetSec Requirements first to see the context and what was changed. Tim, Dimitris, and Neal – what do you think? Is the form of Ballot 221 compliant with the Bylaws? Do you want to ditch this ballot (we don’t have a quorum yet) and start again, including a red-line or comparison showing the changes from the current NetSec Requirements? From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:00 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements I'm unable to locate a redline of the changes in this final version of the ballot, making it difficult to vote. Is this not a "Draft Guideline Ballot" that should be clearly labeled as proposing a Final Maintenance Guideline, and that requires a redline be provided? - Wayne On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:45 AM Blunt, Dave via Public <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Amazon votes YES on Ballot 221. From: Public [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 2:48 PM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [cabfpub] Voting Begins: Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements Ballot 221: Two-Factor Authentication and Password Improvements Purpose of Ballot: The Network Security Working Group met a number of times to improve the Network Security Guidelines requirements around authentication, specifically by requiring two-factor authentication, and improving the password requirements in line with more recent NIST guidelines. While CAs are encouraged to improve their password requirements as soon as possible, a two year grace period is being given to allow organizations to develop and implement policies to implement the improved requirements, especially since some organizations may have to simultaneously comply with other compliance frameworks that have not been updated yet and are based on older NIST guidance about passwords. The following motion has been proposed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and endorsed by Dimitris Zacharopoulos of Harica and Neil Dunbar of TrustCor. — MOTION BEGINS – This ballot modifies the “Network and Certificate System Security Requirements” as follows, based upon Version 1.1: In the definitions, add a definition for Multi-Factor Authentication: "Multi-Factor Authentication: An authentication mechanism consisting of two or more of the following independent categories of credentials (i.e. factors) to verify the user’s identity for a login or other transaction: something you know (knowledge factor), something you have (possession factor), and something you are (inherence factor). Each factor must be independent. Certificate-based authentication can be used as part of Multifactor Authentication only if the private key is stored in a Secure Key Storage Device." Capitalize all instances of the defined term "Multi-Factor Authentication". Add a definition for Secure Key Storage Device: "Secure Key Storage Device: A device certified as meeting at least FIPS 140-2 level 2 overall, level 3 physical, or Common Criteria (EAL 4+)." In section 1.j., capitalize Multi-Factor Authentication, and strike the parenthetical reference to subsection 2.n.(ii). In section 2.f., add "(for accountability purposes, group accounts or shared role credentials SHALL NOT be used)" after "authenticate to Certificate Systems". Change section 2.g. to read: "g. If an authentication control used by a Trusted Role is a username and password, then, where technically feasible, implement the following controls: i. For accounts that are accessible only within Secure Zones or High Security Zones, require that passwords have at least twelve (12) characters; ii. For authentications which cross a zone boundary into a Secure Zone or High Security Zone, require Multi-Factor Authentication. For accounts accessible from outside a Secure Zone or High Security Zone require passwords that have at least eight (8) characters and are not be one of the user's previous four (4) passwords; and implement account lockout for failed access attempts in accordance with subsection k; iii. When developing password policies, CAs SHOULD take into account the password guidance in NIST 800-63B Appendix A. iv. If passwords are required to be changed periodically, that period SHOULD be at least two years. Effective April 1, 2020, if passwords are required to be changed periodically, that period SHALL be at least two years." In section 2.h., change "Require" to "Have a policy that requires" In section 2.i., change "Configure" to "Have a procedure to configure" Change section 2.k. to read: "k. Lockout account access to Certificate Systems after no more than five (5) failed access attempts, provided that this security measure: i. is supported by the Certificate System, ii. Cannot be leveraged for a denial of service attack, and iii. does not weaken the security of this authentication control;" Change section 2.n. to read: "Enforce Multi-Factor Authentication for all Trusted Role accounts on Certificate Systems (including those approving the issuance of a Certificate, which equally applies to Delegated Third Parties) that are accessible from outside a Secure Zone or High Security Zone; and" — MOTION ENDS – The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows: Discussion (7+ days) Start Time: 2018-03-28 15:00:00 EDT End Time: 2018-05-17 17:45:00 EDT Vote for approval (7 days) Start Time: 2018-05-17 17:45:00 EDT End Time: 2018-05-24 17:45:00 EDT _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
