SSC votes: "Yes".

Thanks,
M.D.

On 9/10/2018 9:54 PM, Wayne Thayer via Public wrote:
This ballot entered the voting period late on Friday. Voting ends this Friday 2018-09-14 at 20:00 UTC.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:51 PM Wayne Thayer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Here is version 3 of this ballot, incorporating changes to v2
    suggested by Bruce and Ryan (thanks!).

    I noticed that our current bylaws have reverted back to a
    fixed-length discussion period, so I have changed this version to
    comply.

    ==========================================

    Ballot SC6 version 3: Revocation Timeline Extension

    Purpose of Ballot:
    Section 4.9.1.1 of the Baseline Requirements currently requires
    CAs to revoke a Subscriber certificate within 24 hours of
    identifying any of 15 issues affecting the certificate. In cases
    where there is not an immediate threat of misuse of the
    certificate, this requirement can cause undue harm to a Subscriber
    that isn't capable of replacing the certificate prior to
    revocation. This ballot makes a number of improvements to the
    revocation rules imposed by the Baseline Requirements:
    * Primarily, it creates a tiered timeline for revocations. The
    most critical "reasons" still require revocation within 24 hours,
    but for many others 24 hours becomes a SHOULD and the CA has 5
    days before they MUST revoke.
    * A new "reason for revocation" was added to address the fact that
    there is currently no requirement for CAs to revoke a certificate
    when requested by the domain name registrant. After considering
    some more specific language that required CAs to follow 3.2.2.4 to
    validate domain control, I settled on the following more general
    "reason": "The CA obtains evidence that the validation of domain
    authorization or control for any Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP
    address in the Certificate should not be relied upon."
    * Reason #10 states "The CA determines that any of the information
    appearing in the Certificate is inaccurate or misleading;" This
    ballot removes "or misleading" because that is a subjective
    judgement that could effectively be used to justify censorship, as
    discussed at length in relation to the "Stripe, Inc of Kentucky"
    EV certificates.
    * Current reasons #11 and #13 were removed from the section on
    subscriber certificates because they address cases where the
    intermediate and/or root must be revoked, so there isn't much
    sense (and some possible harm) in requiring revocation of all the
    leaf certs.
    * It requires CAs to disclose their problem reporting mechanisms
    in a standard location: CPS section 1.5.2.
    * Within 24 hours of receiving a problem report, the CA is now
    required to report back to both the entity reporting the problem
    and the Subscriber on the CA's findings, and to work with the
    reporter and Subscriber to establish a date by which the CA will
    revoke the certificate.

    The following motion has been proposed by  Wayne Thayer of Mozilla
    and endorsed by Tim Hollebeek of DigiCert and Dimitris
    Zacharopoulos of Harica.
    

    --- MOTION BEGINS ---

This ballot modifies the “Baseline
    Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted
    Certificates” as follows, based on Version 1.6.0:



    ** Modify the definition of Key Compromise as follows: **
    Key Compromise: A Private Key is said to be compromised if its
    value has been disclosed to an unauthorized person or an
    unauthorized person has had access to it.

    ** Modify Section 4.9.1 to read as follows: **



    4.9.1.1 Reasons for Revoking a Subscriber Certificate

    The CA SHALL revoke a Certificate within 24 hours if one or more
    of the following occurs:
    1. The Subscriber requests in writing that the CA revoke the
    Certificate;
    2. The Subscriber notifies the CA that the original certificate
    request was not authorized and does not retroactively grant
    authorization;
    3. The CA obtains evidence that the Subscriber's Private Key
    corresponding to the Public Key in the Certificate suffered a Key
    Compromise; or
    4. The CA obtains evidence that the validation of domain
    authorization or control for any Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP
    address in the Certificate should not be relied upon.

    The CA SHOULD revoke a certificate within 24 hours and MUST revoke
    a Certificate within 5 days if one or more of the following occurs:
    1. The Certificate no longer complies with the requirements of
    Sections 6.1.5 and 6.1.6;
    2. The CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was misused;
    3. The CA is made aware that a Subscriber has violated one or more
    of its material obligations under the Subscriber Agreement or
    Terms of Use;
    4. The CA is made aware of any circumstance indicating that use of
    a Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP address in the Certificate is
    no longer legally permitted (e.g. a court or arbitrator has
    revoked a Domain Name Registrant's right to use the Domain Name, a
    relevant licensing or services agreement between the Domain Name
    Registrant and the Applicant has terminated, or the Domain Name
    Registrant has failed to renew the Domain Name);
    5. The CA is made aware that a Wildcard Certificate has been used
    to authenticate a fraudulently misleading subordinate
    Fully-Qualified Domain Name;
    6. The CA is made aware of a material change in the information
    contained in the Certificate;
    7. The CA is made aware that the Certificate was not issued in
    accordance with these Requirements or the CA's Certificate Policy
    or Certification Practice Statement;
    8. The CA determines or is made aware that any of the information
    appearing in the Certificate is inaccurate;
    9. The CA's right to issue Certificates under these Requirements
    expires or is revoked or terminated, unless the CA has made
    arrangements to continue maintaining the CRL/OCSP Repository;
    10. Revocation is required by the CA's Certificate Policy and/or
    Certification Practice Statement; or
    11. The CA is made aware of a demonstrated or proven method that
    exposes the Subscriber's Private Key to compromise, methods have
    been developed that can easily calculate it based on the Public
    Key (such as a Debian weak key, see
    http://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys), or if there is clear evidence
    that the specific method used to generate the Private Key was flawed.


    4.9.1.2 Reasons for Revoking a Subordinate CA Certificate

    The Issuing CA SHALL revoke a Subordinate CA Certificate within
    seven (7) days if one or more of the following occurs:
    1. The Subordinate CA requests revocation in writing;
    2. The Subordinate CA notifies the Issuing CA that the original
    certificate request was not authorized and does not retroactively
    grant authorization;
    3. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Subordinate CA's
    Private Key corresponding to the Public Key in the Certificate
    suffered a Key Compromise or no longer complies with the
    requirements of Sections 6.1.5 and 6.1.6;
    4. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was misused;
    5. The Issuing CA is made aware that the Certificate was not
    issued in accordance with or that Subordinate CA has not complied
    with this document or the applicable Certificate Policy or
    Certification Practice Statement;
    6. The Issuing CA determines that any of the information appearing
    in the Certificate is inaccurate or misleading;
    7. The Issuing CA or Subordinate CA ceases operations for any
    reason and has not made arrangements for another CA to provide
    revocation support for the Certificate;
    8. The Issuing CA's or Subordinate CA's right to issue
    Certificates under these Requirements expires or is revoked or
    terminated, unless the Issuing CA has made arrangements to
    continue maintaining the CRL/OCSP Repository; or
    9. Revocation is required by the Issuing CA's Certificate Policy
    and/or Certification Practice Statement.

    ** Modify section 4.9.3 as follows: **

    

The CA SHALL provide a process for Subscribers to request
    revocation of their own Certificates. The process MUST be
    described in the CA's Certificate Policy or Certification Practice
    Statement. The CA SHALL maintain a continuous 24x7 ability to
    accept and respond to revocation requests and Certificate Problem
    Reports.

    The CA SHALL provide Subscribers, Relying Parties, Application
    Software Suppliers, and other third parties with clear
    instructions for reporting suspected Private Key Compromise,
    Certificate misuse, or other types of fraud, compromise, misuse,
    inappropriate conduct, or any other matter related to
    Certificates. The CA SHALL publicly disclose the instructions
    through a readily accessible online means and in section 1.5.2 of
    their CPS.

    ** Modify section 4.9.5 to read as follows: **

    

Within 24 hours after receiving a Certificate Problem Report,
    the CA SHALL investigate the facts and circumstances related to a
    Certificate Problem Report and provide a preliminary report on its
    findings to both the Subscriber and the entity who filed the
    Certificate Problem Report.

    After reviewing the facts and circumstances, the CA SHALL work
    with the Subscriber and any entity reporting the Certificate
    Problem Report or other revocation-related notice to establish
    whether or not the certificate will be revoked, and if so, a date
    which the CA will revoke the certificate. The period from receipt
    of the Certificate Problem Report or revocation-related notice to
    published revocation MUST NOT exceed the time frame set forth in
    Section 4.9.1.1. The date selected by the CA SHOULD consider the
    following criteria:
    1. The nature of the alleged problem (scope, context, severity,
    magnitude, risk of harm);
    2. The consequences of revocation (direct and collateral impacts
    to Subscribers and Relying Parties);
    3. The number of Certificate Problem Reports received about a
    particular Certificate or Subscriber;
    4. The entity making the complaint (for example, a complaint from
    a law enforcement official that a Web site is engaged in illegal
    activities should carry more weight than a complaint from a
    consumer alleging that she didn't receive the goods she ordered); and
    5. Relevant legislation.
    

    --- MOTION ENDS ---

    This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline.

    

A comparison of the changes can be found at:
    https://github.com/cabforum/documents/compare/master...wthayer:patch-1


    The procedure for approval of this ballot is as follows:
    Discussion (7 days)
    Start Time: 2018-08-31  20:00 UTC
    End Time: 2018-09-07  20:00 UTC
    Vote for approval (7 days)
    Start Time: 2018-09-07  20:00 UTC
    End Time: 2018-09-14  20:00 UTC



_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to