Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Thanks to all of you who reviewed and commented on this request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) to include the GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. I believe that all of the concerns that were raised in this discussion have been properly addressed, and I will state my intent to approve this request in the bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 I am now closing this discussion. Any further follow-up should be added directly to the bug. Thanks, Kathleen ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
The updated documents are also posted on the CA's website: https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ Current audit statements are here: WebTrust CA: https://cert.webtrust.org/ViewSeal?id=2231 WebTrust BR: https://cert.webtrust.org/ViewSeal?id=2232 WebTrust EV SSL: https://cert.webtrust.org/ViewSeal?id=2233 Unless anyone raises further questions or concerns, I plan to close this discussion and recommend approval of this request to include "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. Thanks, Kathleen ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Hi All, We have just updated and published our CP/CPS, and the latest versions are available at: CP V1.7: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8871236 CPS V4.6: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8871237 EV CP V1.5: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8871238 EV CPS V1.6: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8871240 We wish these documents will be fully discussed and commented. Thanks. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2017年5月17日星期三 UTC+8下午5:18:59,Rob Stradling写道: > On 12/05/17 06:51, wangsn1206--- via dev-security-policy wrote: > > 在 2017年5月11日星期四 UTC+8下午5:58:00,Rob Stradling写道: > >> On 11/05/17 10:42, wangsn1206--- via dev-security-policy wrote: > >> > * CPS Appendix1: Certificate information of the publicly trusted CAs: > Most > of the listed CAs can't be found in crt.sh - it would be great to get > them > CT logged. > > >>> Already get CT logged for GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT,and such operation > >>> cannot be done for the other two ROOTs as we have not yet applied for the > >>> inclusion of these two. > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> Would you like me to add your other two roots to the list of roots that > >> are accepted by the Comodo Dodo log? > >> > >> If so, please either submit a pull request on GitHub (see > >> https://github.com/Comodo-CA/CTLogs-AcceptedRoots) or send me the two > >> root certs. > >> > >> The Comodo Dodo log isn't trusted by Chrome, but it is monitored by crt.sh. > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > Thanks for your kind assistance, we have e-mailed our roots to you for this > > purpose. > > Our Dodo log now accepts the "GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT" and "数安时代 R5 根 CA" > root certificates, and I've submitted both of them to Dodo. You can see > them here: > > https://crt.sh/?id=139646527 > https://crt.sh/?id=139646529 > > -- > Rob Stradling > Senior Research & Development Scientist > COMODO - Creating Trust Online Thanks Rob. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 12/05/17 06:51, wangsn1206--- via dev-security-policy wrote: 在 2017年5月11日星期四 UTC+8下午5:58:00,Rob Stradling写道: On 11/05/17 10:42, wangsn1206--- via dev-security-policy wrote: * CPS Appendix1: Certificate information of the publicly trusted CAs: Most of the listed CAs can't be found in crt.sh - it would be great to get them CT logged. Already get CT logged for GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT,and such operation cannot be done for the other two ROOTs as we have not yet applied for the inclusion of these two. Hi. Would you like me to add your other two roots to the list of roots that are accepted by the Comodo Dodo log? If so, please either submit a pull request on GitHub (see https://github.com/Comodo-CA/CTLogs-AcceptedRoots) or send me the two root certs. The Comodo Dodo log isn't trusted by Chrome, but it is monitored by crt.sh. Hi Rob, Thanks for your kind assistance, we have e-mailed our roots to you for this purpose. Our Dodo log now accepts the "GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT" and "数安时代 R5 根 CA" root certificates, and I've submitted both of them to Dodo. You can see them here: https://crt.sh/?id=139646527 https://crt.sh/?id=139646529 -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2017年5月16日星期二 UTC+8上午5:19:14,Patrick Tronnier写道: > Greetings, I have reviewed your second BR self-assessment > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860627) against your updated > CP/CPS (CP V1.6, CPS V4.5, EV CP V1.4, and EV CPS V1.5) and provided the > following comments and/or recommendations. > > > 1. BR Section 3.2.2.5 Authentication for an IP: Per your comments please make > sure your CPS states “GDCA does not issue EV certificate for an IP address.” > > 2. BR Section 3.2.2.7 Data Source Accuracy: I recommend adding the specific > length of time data is relied upon (i.e. 39 months or 825 days per BRs) to > section 3.2.11 of your CPS. > > 3. BR Section 3.2.2.7 Data Source Accuracy: I recommend adding the specific > length of time data is relied upon (i.e. 39 months or 825 days per BRs) to > section 3.2.7 of your EV CPS. > > 4. BR Section 3.2.3 Authentication of Individual Identity: I do not see in > the CPS/CP where the differences in authentication of individuals is backed > up by the appropriate technical constraining of the type of certificate > issued. >4.1. Your comments for Type I and Type II Individual Certificates > state they “are only for ordinary signing certificates, not for SSL > certificates and code signing certificates” but I can’t find in the CPS where > this is substantiated. I recommend clearly documenting in the CPS how each > type of certificate is technically constrained (i.e. Key Usage, Enhanced Key > Usage, etc.) and in CPS section 1.3.7.1 removing the words “but not limited > to”. >4.2. For Type III certificates change the word “can” to “must”. > (i.e. This must be validated by ID card, officer card or other valid document > issued by government agency.” > > 5. BR Section 3.2.5 Validation of Authority: Per your comments please make > sure this is clearly defined in the next version of your CPS. > > 6. BR Section 3.2.6 Criteria for Interoperation or Certification. Per your > comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states you do not > issue any cross certificates. > > 7. BR Section 4.2.1 Performing Identification and Authentication Functions. > Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states you do > not rely on data older than 27 months (or 39 months or 825 days per BRs). > > 8. BR Section 4.2.2 Approval or Rejection of Certificate Applications: Per > your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states GDCA does > not issue certificates containing a new gTLD under consideration by ICANN. > > 9. BR Section 4.3.1 CA Actions during Certificate Issuance: Per your comments > please make sure the next version of your CPS states “Certificate issuance by > the Root CA SHALL require an individual authorized by the CA (i.e. the CA > system operator, system officer, or PKI administrator) to deliberately issue > a direct command in order for the Root CA to perform a certificate signing > operation.” > > 10. BR Section 4.5.1 Subscriber private key and certificate usage: Per your > comments please make sure the next version of your CPS details the use of SSL > certificates per #4 (Use of Certificate) as described in BR Section 9.6.3. > Subscriber Representations and Warranties. > > 11. BR Section 4.9.13 Circumstances for Suspension: Per your comments please > make sure the next version of your CPS states certificate suspension is not > allowed. > > 12. BR Section 4.10.1 Operational Characteristics: Per your comments please > make sure the next version of your CPS states “Revocation entries on a CRL or > OCSP Response will not be removed until after the Expiry Date of the revoked > Certificate”. > > 13. BR Section 4.10.2 Service Availability: Per your comments please make > sure the next version of your CPS states “the service response time shall be > less than 10 seconds”. > > 14. Based on your self assessment comments in BR sections 1 – 4, I submit it > would be useful for you to revisit your assessment of BR sections 5 > (MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONAL, AND PHYSICAL CONTROLS) through section 9 (OTHER > BUSINESS AND LEGAL MATTERS) and update your BR Assessment. Hi Patrick, Thanks for the comments and recommendations, which will be duly considered as necessary in the next version of our CP/CPS to be published on around May 25, 2017. Thanks. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Greetings, I have reviewed your second BR self-assessment (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860627) against your updated CP/CPS (CP V1.6, CPS V4.5, EV CP V1.4, and EV CPS V1.5) and provided the following comments and/or recommendations. 1. BR Section 3.2.2.5 Authentication for an IP: Per your comments please make sure your CPS states “GDCA does not issue EV certificate for an IP address.” 2. BR Section 3.2.2.7 Data Source Accuracy: I recommend adding the specific length of time data is relied upon (i.e. 39 months or 825 days per BRs) to section 3.2.11 of your CPS. 3. BR Section 3.2.2.7 Data Source Accuracy: I recommend adding the specific length of time data is relied upon (i.e. 39 months or 825 days per BRs) to section 3.2.7 of your EV CPS. 4. BR Section 3.2.3 Authentication of Individual Identity: I do not see in the CPS/CP where the differences in authentication of individuals is backed up by the appropriate technical constraining of the type of certificate issued. 4.1. Your comments for Type I and Type II Individual Certificates state they “are only for ordinary signing certificates, not for SSL certificates and code signing certificates” but I can’t find in the CPS where this is substantiated. I recommend clearly documenting in the CPS how each type of certificate is technically constrained (i.e. Key Usage, Enhanced Key Usage, etc.) and in CPS section 1.3.7.1 removing the words “but not limited to”. 4.2. For Type III certificates change the word “can” to “must”. (i.e. This must be validated by ID card, officer card or other valid document issued by government agency.” 5. BR Section 3.2.5 Validation of Authority: Per your comments please make sure this is clearly defined in the next version of your CPS. 6. BR Section 3.2.6 Criteria for Interoperation or Certification. Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states you do not issue any cross certificates. 7. BR Section 4.2.1 Performing Identification and Authentication Functions. Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states you do not rely on data older than 27 months (or 39 months or 825 days per BRs). 8. BR Section 4.2.2 Approval or Rejection of Certificate Applications: Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states GDCA does not issue certificates containing a new gTLD under consideration by ICANN. 9. BR Section 4.3.1 CA Actions during Certificate Issuance: Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states “Certificate issuance by the Root CA SHALL require an individual authorized by the CA (i.e. the CA system operator, system officer, or PKI administrator) to deliberately issue a direct command in order for the Root CA to perform a certificate signing operation.” 10. BR Section 4.5.1 Subscriber private key and certificate usage: Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS details the use of SSL certificates per #4 (Use of Certificate) as described in BR Section 9.6.3. Subscriber Representations and Warranties. 11. BR Section 4.9.13 Circumstances for Suspension: Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states certificate suspension is not allowed. 12. BR Section 4.10.1 Operational Characteristics: Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states “Revocation entries on a CRL or OCSP Response will not be removed until after the Expiry Date of the revoked Certificate”. 13. BR Section 4.10.2 Service Availability: Per your comments please make sure the next version of your CPS states “the service response time shall be less than 10 seconds”. 14. Based on your self assessment comments in BR sections 1 – 4, I submit it would be useful for you to revisit your assessment of BR sections 5 (MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONAL, AND PHYSICAL CONTROLS) through section 9 (OTHER BUSINESS AND LEGAL MATTERS) and update your BR Assessment. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2017年5月11日星期四 UTC+8下午5:58:00,Rob Stradling写道: > On 11/05/17 10:42, wangsn1206--- via dev-security-policy wrote: > > >> * CPS Appendix1: Certificate information of the publicly trusted CAs: Most > >> of the listed CAs can't be found in crt.sh - it would be great to get them > >> CT logged. > >> > > Already get CT logged for GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT,and such operation cannot > > be done for the other two ROOTs as we have not yet applied for the > > inclusion of these two. > > Hi. > > Would you like me to add your other two roots to the list of roots that > are accepted by the Comodo Dodo log? > > If so, please either submit a pull request on GitHub (see > https://github.com/Comodo-CA/CTLogs-AcceptedRoots) or send me the two > root certs. > > The Comodo Dodo log isn't trusted by Chrome, but it is monitored by crt.sh. > > -- > Rob Stradling > Senior Research & Development Scientist > COMODO - Creating Trust Online Hi Rob, Thanks for your kind assistance, we have e-mailed our roots to you for this purpose. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 11/05/17 10:42, wangsn1206--- via dev-security-policy wrote: * CPS Appendix1: Certificate information of the publicly trusted CAs: Most of the listed CAs can't be found in crt.sh - it would be great to get them CT logged. Already get CT logged for GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT,and such operation cannot be done for the other two ROOTs as we have not yet applied for the inclusion of these two. Hi. Would you like me to add your other two roots to the list of roots that are accepted by the Comodo Dodo log? If so, please either submit a pull request on GitHub (see https://github.com/Comodo-CA/CTLogs-AcceptedRoots) or send me the two root certs. The Comodo Dodo log isn't trusted by Chrome, but it is monitored by crt.sh. -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Hi Andrew, Thanks for the comments. Please check our following responses. > * Please don't protect your PDFs for printing > We have removed the restrictions on the printing of the PDF documents and re-uploaded them to the BUG, these documents are available at: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=888 https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=889 https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8866670 https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8866671 > * https://SSLTEST-2.95105813.cn - which I believe should be revoked, has > also expired. The revoked test cert should be otherwise valid and not > expired. > We have replaced the certificate. Please check. > * While there is mention of how CAA records are dealt with in section > 4.2.4, it doesn't seem to specify what value is expected to be present in > the record for the check to pass. > GDCA will not issue corresponding certificates if the "issue", "issuewild"property tags do not contain“gdca.com.cn”. In case the property tag “iodef” is present in the CAA records, GDCA will determine whether or not to issue certificates after communicating with the applicant. > * 3.2.7. 域名的确认和鉴别 Domain name recognition and identification - This section > references BR version v1.4.1. Version 1.4.4 is current and has changes in > the section numbers referred to here. (Also see versions under IPR review > on the CAB Forum website) > As required by Mozilla, CPS V4.5 uses methods documented in section 3.2.2.4 of version 1.4.1 of the CA/Browser Forum's Baseline Requirements (BRs)for domain validation. We will checkBR v1.4.3 and later versions and update this section as necessary. > * 7.1 Certificate profile: There is no mention of how the serial number is > generated. The BRs specify "Effective September 30, 2016, CAs SHALL > generate non‐sequential Certificate serial numbers greater than zero (0) > containing at least 64 bits of output from a CSPRNG." > In our next version, we will disclose: “Certificate serial number--Within the domain of each Issuing CA, GDCA includes a unique non-sequential Certificate serial number greater than zerocontaining at least 64 bits of output from a CSPRNG.” > * CP 7.1.3 says "The cryptographic algorithm identifiers of certificates > issued by GDCA include sha1RSA, sha256RSA and sha256ECDSA". SHA1 > signatures must not be used in any part of the publically trusted hierarchy. > Certificates of GDCA's publically trusted CAs do not use sha1RSA signing algorithm. We will definitely disclose in the next version. > * CP 7.1.5 on "Name Constraints" looks like it's referring to 3.1.2 "Need > for names to be meaningful". This section is meant to refer to RFC 5280 > section 4.2.1.10 name constraints. > The content of section 7.1.5 of CP/CPS will be moved to section 3.1.2 in the next version of CP/CPS. And GDCA has no stipulation on Name Constraints. > * CPS Appendix1: Certificate information of the publicly trusted CAs: Most > of the listed CAs can't be found in crt.sh - it would be great to get them > CT logged. > Already get CT logged for GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT,and such operation cannot be done for the other two ROOTs as we have not yet applied for the inclusion of these two. > * Only GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT (SHA-1 Fingerprint > 0F:36:38:5B:81:1A:25:C3:9B:31:4E:83:CA:E9:34:66:70:CC:74:B4) seems to have > been disclosed in Mozilla's CCADB. > We have uploaded all the intermediate certificates of the GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT in the CCADB. According to the CCADB rules, CAs can only upload intermediate certificates, and only Root Store Members can upload root certificates, therefore, GDCA has not uploaded the 数安时代R5根CA and the GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOTand their respective intermediate certificates. For your information, we expect to publish the next version of our CP/CPS on around May 25, 2017, with the latest comments and BR v1.4.4 taken into consideration. And as always, we welcome all comments and suggestions. Thanks. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2017年4月20日星期四 UTC+8下午11:31:14,Patrick Tronnier写道: > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-4, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > We have just published the updated CP/CPS documents, this version has been > > revised according to the latest Baseline Requirements and has been reviewed > > internally, meanwhile, the points our “Analysis on the Compliance of GDCA’s > > CP and CPS with the Baseline Requirements (published on March 25, 2017)” > > promised to disclose have been included in this version, and we will update > > the compliance analysis document as soon as possible. Please find the new > > version at: > > CP V1.6: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860016 > > CPS V4.5: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860018 > > EV CP V1.4: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860019 > > EV CPS V1.5: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860020 > > > > We wish these documents will be fully discussed by the public, so that > > Mozilla can make decision on this root inclusion application. > > All comments and suggestions are welcomed. Thanks. > > I updated your bug with a review of your initial BR-self-assessment using the > previously posted CPS's. The review is attachment > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860075. > > Would you please complete a second BR-self-assessment against the just posted > CPS's and CP's and use my attachment as your starting point? Thank you. Hi Patrick, Thanks for the comments. Please check our second BR self-assessment against our updated CP/CPS (CP V1.6, CPS V4.5, EV CP V1.4, and EV CPS V1.5).You can find the document at the following address of the BUG:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860627 We welcome all comments and suggestions. Thanks. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-4, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > We have just published the updated CP/CPS documents, this version has been > revised according to the latest Baseline Requirements and has been reviewed > internally, meanwhile, the points our “Analysis on the Compliance of GDCA’s > CP and CPS with the Baseline Requirements (published on March 25, 2017)” > promised to disclose have been included in this version, and we will update > the compliance analysis document as soon as possible. Please find the new > version at: > CP V1.6: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860016 > CPS V4.5: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860018 > EV CP V1.4: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860019 > EV CPS V1.5: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860020 > > We wish these documents will be fully discussed by the public, so that > Mozilla can make decision on this root inclusion application. > All comments and suggestions are welcomed. Thanks. I updated your bug with a review of your initial BR-self-assessment using the previously posted CPS's. The review is attachment https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8860075. Would you please complete a second BR-self-assessment against the just posted CPS's and CP's and use my attachment as your starting point? Thank you. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2017年3月30日星期四 UTC+8下午10:34:00,Patrick Tronnier写道: > On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 11:48:43 PM UTC-4, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > We compiled an analysis document on our CP/CPS’s Compliance with the BRs > > for everyone to review and comment. You can find the document at the > > following address of the > > BUG:https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8851230 > > > > Your suggestions will be much appreciated. > > As part of the suggestion process it would be useful to expand on the tables > you listed in section 2 "Compliance Analysis". Would you be able to attach an > editable MS Word version? We uploaded an editable version of the comparison document in MS Word format for the convenience of review and comments. You can find the document at the following address of the BUG:https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8853351 The contents of the Word document are the same with that of the PDF document, except for the correction of a mistake in the Table of Contents part of the PDF document. All suggestions and comments are welcomed. Thanks. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2017年3月30日星期四 UTC+8下午10:34:00,Patrick Tronnier写道: > On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 11:48:43 PM UTC-4, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > We compiled an analysis document on our CP/CPS’s Compliance with the BRs > > for everyone to review and comment. You can find the document at the > > following address of the > > BUG:https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8851230 > > > > Your suggestions will be much appreciated. > > As part of the suggestion process it would be useful to expand on the tables > you listed in section 2 "Compliance Analysis". Would you be able to attach an > editable MS Word version? We uploaded an editable version of the comparison document in MS Word format for the convenience of review and comments. You can find the document at the following address of the BUG:https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8853351 The contents of the Word document are the same with that of the PDF document, except for the correction of a mistake in the Table of Contents part of the PDF document. All suggestions and comments are welcomed. Thanks. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 11:48:43 PM UTC-4, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > We compiled an analysis document on our CP/CPS’s Compliance with the BRs for > everyone to review and comment. You can find the document at the following > address of the > BUG:https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8851230 > > Your suggestions will be much appreciated. As part of the suggestion process it would be useful to expand on the tables you listed in section 2 "Compliance Analysis". Would you be able to attach an editable MS Word version? ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
All, This request is to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. In order to help get this discussion moving again, I asked GDCA to provide a side-by-side comparison of the latest version of the BRs with their CP/CPS documents. They provided this BR-self-assessment here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8851230 The documents that were evaluated in this self-assessment are available on the CA's website. All of these documents contain both the original text in Chinese, and the translation into English. Document Repository: https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ GDCA CP v1.5: https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/CPCPS-GDCA1.5GDCA-CP-V1.5/ GDCA CPS v4.4: https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/CPCPS-GDCA4.4GDCA-CPS-V4.4/ GDCA EV CP v1.3: https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/CPCPS-GDCA-EV1.3GDCA-EV-CP-V1.3/ GDCA EV CPS v1.4: https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/CPCPS-GDCA-EV1.4GDCA-EV-CPS-V1.4/ I will greatly appreciate it if you all would take another look at this CA's request, review their self-assessment, and respond in this discussion to let me know if you believe that this CA has addressed all of your questions or concerns. Also, I would like to make this BR-self-assessment a standard part of Mozilla's root inclusion/change process. I will draft what that will look like, and start a separate discussion about it. Thanks, Kathleen ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
We compiled an analysis document on our CP/CPS’s Compliance with the BRs for everyone to review and comment. You can find the document at the following address of the BUG:https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8851230 Your suggestions will be much appreciated. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
The answer is yes. That’s why we need to apply for root inclusion. We also upload the latest version of CP/CPS here for your convenience. 1. GDCA CP Ver 1.5 https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8813656 2. GDCA CPS Ver 4.4 https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8813658 3. GDCA EV CP Ver 1.3 https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8813659 4. GDCA EV CPS Ver 1.4 https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8813660 ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 22/11/16 15:47, wangsn1...@gmail.com wrote: > into effect on Dec 1st, 2016. Here are the names of the files and > their URL: 1. GDCA CP Ver 1.5 > https://www.gdca.com.cn/export/sites/default/customer_service/.content/attachments/1.GDCA-CP-V1.5.pdf A bilingual edition seems like an excellent idea :-) I would note that the site from which you are serving these documents uses a security certificate which is not currently trusted by Firefox. Is that because it uses the new root you are applying to include? Gerv ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Thanks for all suggestions upon our CP/CPS and base on the development of our business, we have revised and prepared a bilingual edition of CP/CPS, which have been submitted to our auditor to check the consistency of major contents between Chinese version and English version, and officially published after internal review and approval in accordance with control regulations disclosed in CP. We did the translation work to the best of our knowledge. However, there may still be some improper translation because of time limit. Please kindly point out if there is any error, propose any question or offer suggestions for us to make further improvements in the next revision. We will devote our best effort to do it better! The following files have been published in the official website of GDCA and will come into effect on Dec 1st, 2016. Here are the names of the files and their URL: 1. GDCA CP Ver 1.5 https://www.gdca.com.cn/export/sites/default/customer_service/.content/attachments/1.GDCA-CP-V1.5.pdf 2. GDCA CPS Ver 4.4 https://www.gdca.com.cn/export/sites/default/customer_service/.content/attachments/1.GDCA-CPS-V4.4.pdf 3. GDCA EV CP Ver 1.3 https://www.gdca.com.cn/export/sites/default/customer_service/.content/attachments/1.GDCA-EVCP-V1.3.pdf 4. GDCA EV CPS Ver 1.4 https://www.gdca.com.cn/export/sites/default/customer_service/.content/attachments/1.GDCA-EVCPS-V1.4.pdf ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 18/11/16 11:38, wangsn1...@gmail.com wrote: > GDCA takes security and governance seriously and we have a strict > control for Chinese version CP/CPS, all the contents are disclosed. > And The Chinese versions for CPS 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 are published on the > official website, so we cannot cover-up anything. There are three > reasons for the confusion in the English versions: Thank you for this information. I accept these explanations. Once the fully-translated documents are available, I think the inclusion request should continue. Gerv ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年11月17日星期四 UTC+8下午7:20:05,Gervase Markham写道: > Hi Kathleen, > > On 15/11/16 00:51, Kathleen Wilson wrote: > > There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the > > versioning problems between the English documents and the original > > documents. > > > > Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root > > inclusion request? > > As I understand it, what happened was as follows: > > * As part of their application, GDCA provided both Chinese and English > versions of their CP/CPS, posted to m.d.s.policy on 3rd August: > > Chinese CP: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > Chinese CPS: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > English CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > English CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > (I don't immediately have URLs for their EV CP and CPS in Chinese or > English from the original submission.) > > * On 26th September, it was pointed out by Andrew Whalley that the > English versions had lower version numbers than the Chinese versions > (CP: 1.2 vs. 1.4; CPS: 4.1 vs 4.3) > > * On 27th September, one day later, GDCA provided new English versions > with the same version numbers as the Chinese versions: > > CP V1.4: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795090 > CPS V4.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 > EV CP V1.2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795093 > EV CPS V1.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795094 > > * It was pointed out by more than one person that there were significant > content differences between the English and Chinese versions which were > both labelled with the same version number > > * GDCA said this was due to a "poor CP/CPS English translation" and on > 28th October, provided new English versions (again) with the same > version numbers > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > EV CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > What Mozilla has to decide is whether this was incompetence or malice. > Were GDCA trying to hide something? If so, their inclusion must be in > doubt. If they were not trying to hide something and just need a lesson > in version control, that is not necessarily something which > disqualifies, although it does give one concern. > > Looking at the CPS (using pdf2txt and diff), the differences between the > originally-submitted v4.1 and the first 4.3 are very minor. One > intermediate certificate changes name throughout, as does the name of > GDCA. Three certs in an appendix are replaced with others. Other than > that, the only changes are these: > > https://gist.github.com/gerv/fc311785c49c7fdfdfba78d6d5ad4aa9 > > This seems like an odd change, removing specificity about how domain > validation is done. This change was _added_ to the Chinese version of > 3.2.5 between 4.1 and 4.2, and moved to section 3.2.7 in version 4.3. So > how does going from 4.1 to 4.3 in the English version lead to it being > removed? On 2015.8.20, we uploaded the English Version 4.1 to bugzilla for the first time, and section 3.2.5 was translated from the Chinese version CPS 4.1. On 2015.10.22, Kathleen pointed out that section 3.2.5 " Domain name recognition and identification" could not meet the requirements of Mozilla. Therefore, on 2015.11.17, we submitted a new English Version 4.1 with modified section 3.2.5. However, due to the negligence of our employee, the submitted English Version 4.3 on 2016.9.26 was revised based on the English version 4.1 of 2015.8.20. In the submitted English Version 4.3 on 2016.10.28, this mistake was found and solved. For the question that "the Chinese version of 3.2.5 between 4.1 and 4.2 moved to section 3.2.7 in version 4.3", this is because we added section 3.2.5 " Authentication of SSL Server Identity" and section 3.2.6 " Authentication of CodeSigning Identity". Accordingly, the former 3.2.5 changes into 3.2.7. > > The differences between the first 4.3 and the second one are much more > extensive. > > So I'd say the questions for GDCA are these: > > * When you were asked to produce a version of your CPS matching Chinese > version 4.3, within a day you came up with: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 > That clearly doesn't match Chinese version 4.3, and yet it has "version > 4.3" written in it. And the effective date marked within it is one month > _earlier_ than the effective date of the Chinese 4.3. How did this > happen? How did such a document come to exist with such a version number > and date attached, when it is so massively different from the real 4.3, > and so similar to the previous 4.1? > > * You say you only translated the relevant bits rather than all of it, > which is why there is a discrepancy, but the diff between 4.1 and the > first version of 4.3 reveals no additions,
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 17/11/2016 12:19, Gervase Markham wrote: Hi Kathleen, On 15/11/16 00:51, Kathleen Wilson wrote: There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the versioning problems between the English documents and the original documents. Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion request? As I understand it, what happened was as follows: * As part of their application, GDCA provided both Chinese and English versions of their CP/CPS, posted to m.d.s.policy on 3rd August: Chinese CP: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp Chinese CPS: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps English CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 English CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 (I don't immediately have URLs for their EV CP and CPS in Chinese or English from the original submission.) * On 26th September, it was pointed out by Andrew Whalley that the English versions had lower version numbers than the Chinese versions (CP: 1.2 vs. 1.4; CPS: 4.1 vs 4.3) * On 27th September, one day later, GDCA provided new English versions with the same version numbers as the Chinese versions: CP V1.4: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795090 CPS V4.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 EV CP V1.2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795093 EV CPS V1.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795094 * It was pointed out by more than one person that there were significant content differences between the English and Chinese versions which were both labelled with the same version number * GDCA said this was due to a "poor CP/CPS English translation" and on 28th October, provided new English versions (again) with the same version numbers CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 EV CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 What Mozilla has to decide is whether this was incompetence or malice. Were GDCA trying to hide something? If so, their inclusion must be in doubt. If they were not trying to hide something and just need a lesson in version control, that is not necessarily something which disqualifies, although it does give one concern. I believe their overall excuses can be rephrased as: 1. The previous Mozilla policy guidance only requiring a partial translation. Mozilla has since fixed that, though I can't find the posting that mentioned that document fix. 2. Sloppy translation work, including sloppyness when trying to quickly update the 4.1 translation to match the 4.3 Chinese documents. 3. At the time, the English translations were not version controlled, only the Chinese versions. They have promised to change this for the next version, where they will even request an outside audit of the translation. 4. That consistent pair of a new CP/CPS in Chinese and English has not been posted yet, indicating that Mozilla will just have to put the inclusion request on hold until then. Enjoy Jakob -- Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年11月16日星期三 UTC+8下午3:59:12,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > 在 2016年11月16日星期三 UTC+8上午1:11:05,Han Yuwei写道: > > 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8下午7:03:07,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > > > 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8上午8:51:25,Kathleen Wilson写道: > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:29:56 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. > > > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > > > > > CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > > > > > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > > > > > EV CPS: > > > > > https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > > > > > > > > > Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have > > > > > any questions, please contact us. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to all of you who have reviewed and commented on this request > > > > from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the "GDCA > > > > TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and > > > > enabled EV treatment. > > > > > > > > There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the > > > > versioning problems between the English documents and the original > > > > documents. > > > > > > > > Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion > > > > request? > > > > > > > > Or should we proceed with reviewing these new English translations of > > > > the documents, and make our decision based on the new versions? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kathleen > > > > > > Because we misunderstand that we only need to provide the related > > > chapters of CP/CPS in English, and non-related sections are not required. > > > We are terribly sorry that we misinterpreted your requirement and upload > > > an inconsistent CP/CPS in English. Someone inferred that we don’t utilize > > > a version control for CP/CPS. In fact, we do have a strict control for > > > master version CP/CPS (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). > > > We understand that it is our responsibility to provide accurate English > > > versions and ensure consistency and synchronicity between Chinese and > > > English versions. Hence, we have decided to strictly implement version > > > controlling of English version CP/CPS according to section 1.5 in CP/CPS. > > > The auditor is reviewing our complete CP/CPS in English and the new > > > version will be published as soon as possible. > > > We will keep open mind to process any further issues. > > > > Ok, this is what I want to see. Maybe next time you could be more specific > > about the problems and not just like "translation problem". If you can't > > describe your opinion exactly in English you can use Chinese and let others > > translate. But it's best for you to hire a professional translator. > > Since CPS is very critical, I hope you understand what I said before. I > > don't want another Wosign incident happen again. > > Thanks for proposing many good questions, which push us to utilize version > controls for English CP/CPS. We are looking forward to your further comments > and suggestions. > We plan to attend the CA/B Forum meetings in February next year, If it is > lucky to meet you there, we are looking forward to have your consultation and > suggestions. So are you going to conduct a complete investgation about this? I am still waiting for it. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Hi Kathleen, On 15/11/16 00:51, Kathleen Wilson wrote: > There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the > versioning problems between the English documents and the original > documents. > > Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root > inclusion request? As I understand it, what happened was as follows: * As part of their application, GDCA provided both Chinese and English versions of their CP/CPS, posted to m.d.s.policy on 3rd August: Chinese CP: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp Chinese CPS: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps English CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 English CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 (I don't immediately have URLs for their EV CP and CPS in Chinese or English from the original submission.) * On 26th September, it was pointed out by Andrew Whalley that the English versions had lower version numbers than the Chinese versions (CP: 1.2 vs. 1.4; CPS: 4.1 vs 4.3) * On 27th September, one day later, GDCA provided new English versions with the same version numbers as the Chinese versions: CP V1.4: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795090 CPS V4.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 EV CP V1.2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795093 EV CPS V1.3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795094 * It was pointed out by more than one person that there were significant content differences between the English and Chinese versions which were both labelled with the same version number * GDCA said this was due to a "poor CP/CPS English translation" and on 28th October, provided new English versions (again) with the same version numbers CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 EV CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 What Mozilla has to decide is whether this was incompetence or malice. Were GDCA trying to hide something? If so, their inclusion must be in doubt. If they were not trying to hide something and just need a lesson in version control, that is not necessarily something which disqualifies, although it does give one concern. Looking at the CPS (using pdf2txt and diff), the differences between the originally-submitted v4.1 and the first 4.3 are very minor. One intermediate certificate changes name throughout, as does the name of GDCA. Three certs in an appendix are replaced with others. Other than that, the only changes are these: https://gist.github.com/gerv/fc311785c49c7fdfdfba78d6d5ad4aa9 This seems like an odd change, removing specificity about how domain validation is done. This change was _added_ to the Chinese version of 3.2.5 between 4.1 and 4.2, and moved to section 3.2.7 in version 4.3. So how does going from 4.1 to 4.3 in the English version lead to it being removed? The differences between the first 4.3 and the second one are much more extensive. So I'd say the questions for GDCA are these: * When you were asked to produce a version of your CPS matching Chinese version 4.3, within a day you came up with: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 That clearly doesn't match Chinese version 4.3, and yet it has "version 4.3" written in it. And the effective date marked within it is one month _earlier_ than the effective date of the Chinese 4.3. How did this happen? How did such a document come to exist with such a version number and date attached, when it is so massively different from the real 4.3, and so similar to the previous 4.1? * You say you only translated the relevant bits rather than all of it, which is why there is a discrepancy, but the diff between 4.1 and the first version of 4.3 reveals no additions, only one deletion. How does that fit? Gerv ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年11月16日星期三 UTC+8上午1:11:05,Han Yuwei写道: > 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8下午7:03:07,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > > 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8上午8:51:25,Kathleen Wilson写道: > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:29:56 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. > > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > > > > CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > > > > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > > > > EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > > > > > > > Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have > > > > any questions, please contact us. > > > > > > > > > Thanks to all of you who have reviewed and commented on this request from > > > Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH > > > R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV > > > treatment. > > > > > > There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the > > > versioning problems between the English documents and the original > > > documents. > > > > > > Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion > > > request? > > > > > > Or should we proceed with reviewing these new English translations of the > > > documents, and make our decision based on the new versions? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kathleen > > > > Because we misunderstand that we only need to provide the related chapters > > of CP/CPS in English, and non-related sections are not required. We are > > terribly sorry that we misinterpreted your requirement and upload an > > inconsistent CP/CPS in English. Someone inferred that we don’t utilize a > > version control for CP/CPS. In fact, we do have a strict control for master > > version CP/CPS (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). > > We understand that it is our responsibility to provide accurate English > > versions and ensure consistency and synchronicity between Chinese and > > English versions. Hence, we have decided to strictly implement version > > controlling of English version CP/CPS according to section 1.5 in CP/CPS. > > The auditor is reviewing our complete CP/CPS in English and the new version > > will be published as soon as possible. > > We will keep open mind to process any further issues. > > Ok, this is what I want to see. Maybe next time you could be more specific > about the problems and not just like "translation problem". If you can't > describe your opinion exactly in English you can use Chinese and let others > translate. But it's best for you to hire a professional translator. > Since CPS is very critical, I hope you understand what I said before. I don't > want another Wosign incident happen again. Thanks for proposing many good questions, which push us to utilize version controls for English CP/CPS. We are looking forward to your further comments and suggestions. We plan to attend the CA/B Forum meetings in February next year, If it is lucky to meet you there, we are looking forward to have your consultation and suggestions. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年11月16日星期三 UTC+8上午6:35:22,Kathleen Wilson写道: > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 10:41:28 AM UTC-8, Peter Bowen wrote: > > I think Mozilla needs to update its guidance to CAs. The information > > checklist directions > > (https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Information_checklist#Verification_Policies_and_Practices) > > says "If the CP/CPS documents are not in English, then the portions of > > those documents pertaining to verification of the certificate > > subscriber must be translated into English." > > Done... > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Information_checklist#Verification_Policies_and_Practices > now says: "If the CP/CPS documents are not in English, then the CP/CPS > documents that are relevant to the root inclusion request must be translated > into English." > > Also updated > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Recommended_Practices#Publicly_Available_CP_and_CPS > to add the second sentence to the 3rd bullet point: > "The CP/CPS should be available in an English version. The non-English > version may be authoritative (as that's the working language of the CA) but > the CA is responsible for ensuring that the translation is not materially > different from the authoritative version of the document." > > Note that this is also on our list of things to add directly to the policy: > https://github.com/mozilla/pkipolicy/issues/6 > > > > > > This makes me think that the expectation is not that the full doc is > > in English and that a one-time translation is acceptable. > > > > I don't think we should hold it against GDCA that Mozilla's > > requirements have apparently changed. > > Fair enough. > > Before asking folks to review the documents again... > > Would a representative of GDCA please confirm that the following translations > are correct to the best of their knowledge? > Please also confirm that these documents match the corresponding version of > the document in Chinese (no material differences). > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > > Thanks, > Kathleen Now we have a good understanding of the latest policy of Mozilla. We have sent a complete CP/CPS in English to our auditor. They will review the documents to ensure it is consistent with the Chinese version and meets the latest requirements. The CP/CPS in English will be revised and approved in light of Section 1.5 in CP/CPS after receiving feedback from the auditor, and will be published in our website before November 22nd 23:59 (Beijing time). We hope everyone can have a discussion based on the newly published versions. Thanks to all for your understanding and suggestions to GDCA. We will keep an open mind to process any further issues. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 10:41:28 AM UTC-8, Peter Bowen wrote: > I think Mozilla needs to update its guidance to CAs. The information > checklist directions > (https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Information_checklist#Verification_Policies_and_Practices) > says "If the CP/CPS documents are not in English, then the portions of > those documents pertaining to verification of the certificate > subscriber must be translated into English." Done... https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Information_checklist#Verification_Policies_and_Practices now says: "If the CP/CPS documents are not in English, then the CP/CPS documents that are relevant to the root inclusion request must be translated into English." Also updated https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Recommended_Practices#Publicly_Available_CP_and_CPS to add the second sentence to the 3rd bullet point: "The CP/CPS should be available in an English version. The non-English version may be authoritative (as that's the working language of the CA) but the CA is responsible for ensuring that the translation is not materially different from the authoritative version of the document." Note that this is also on our list of things to add directly to the policy: https://github.com/mozilla/pkipolicy/issues/6 > > This makes me think that the expectation is not that the full doc is > in English and that a one-time translation is acceptable. > > I don't think we should hold it against GDCA that Mozilla's > requirements have apparently changed. Fair enough. Before asking folks to review the documents again... Would a representative of GDCA please confirm that the following translations are correct to the best of their knowledge? Please also confirm that these documents match the corresponding version of the document in Chinese (no material differences). CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 Thanks, Kathleen ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:02 AM,wrote: > > Because we misunderstand that we only need to provide the related chapters of > CP/CPS in English, and non-related sections are not required. We are terribly > sorry that we misinterpreted your requirement and upload an inconsistent > CP/CPS in English. Someone inferred that we don’t utilize a version control > for CP/CPS. In fact, we do have a strict control for master version CP/CPS > (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). > We understand that it is our responsibility to provide accurate English > versions and ensure consistency and synchronicity between Chinese and English > versions. Hence, we have decided to strictly implement version controlling of > English version CP/CPS according to section 1.5 in CP/CPS. The auditor is > reviewing our complete CP/CPS in English and the new version will be > published as soon as possible. > We will keep open mind to process any further issues. I think Mozilla needs to update its guidance to CAs. The information checklist directions (https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Information_checklist#Verification_Policies_and_Practices) says "If the CP/CPS documents are not in English, then the portions of those documents pertaining to verification of the certificate subscriber must be translated into English." This makes me think that the expectation is not that the full doc is in English and that a one-time translation is acceptable. I don't think we should hold it against GDCA that Mozilla's requirements have apparently changed. Thanks, Peter ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:03:07 AM UTC-5, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8上午8:51:25,Kathleen Wilson写道: > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:29:56 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > > > CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > > > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > > > EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > > > > > Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have any > > > questions, please contact us. > > > > > > Thanks to all of you who have reviewed and commented on this request from > > Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 > > ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV > > treatment. > > > > There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the versioning > > problems between the English documents and the original documents. > > > > Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion > > request? > > > > Or should we proceed with reviewing these new English translations of the > > documents, and make our decision based on the new versions? > > > > Thanks, > > Kathleen > > Because we misunderstand that we only need to provide the related chapters of > CP/CPS in English, and non-related sections are not required. We are terribly > sorry that we misinterpreted your requirement and upload an inconsistent > CP/CPS in English. Someone inferred that we don’t utilize a version control > for CP/CPS. In fact, we do have a strict control for master version CP/CPS > (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). > We understand that it is our responsibility to provide accurate English > versions and ensure consistency and synchronicity between Chinese and English > versions. Hence, we have decided to strictly implement version controlling of > English version CP/CPS according to section 1.5 in CP/CPS. The auditor is > reviewing our complete CP/CPS in English and the new version will be > published as soon as possible. > We will keep open mind to process any further issues. Read through this discussion thread, here is my take on this. GDCA has taken action to address the discrepancies between English and Chinese CP/CPS and put in place stricter version control. So we should look at the updated version, if that's deemed good I don't see other reason to reject. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 15/11/2016 18:10, Han Yuwei wrote: 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8下午7:03:07,wangs...@gmail.com写道: 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8上午8:51:25,Kathleen Wilson写道: On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:29:56 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have any questions, please contact us. Thanks to all of you who have reviewed and commented on this request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the versioning problems between the English documents and the original documents. Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion request? Or should we proceed with reviewing these new English translations of the documents, and make our decision based on the new versions? Thanks, Kathleen Because we misunderstand that we only need to provide the related chapters of CP/CPS in English, and non-related sections are not required. We are terribly sorry that we misinterpreted your requirement and upload an inconsistent CP/CPS in English. Someone inferred that we don’t utilize a version control for CP/CPS. In fact, we do have a strict control for master version CP/CPS (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). We understand that it is our responsibility to provide accurate English versions and ensure consistency and synchronicity between Chinese and English versions. Hence, we have decided to strictly implement version controlling of English version CP/CPS according to section 1.5 in CP/CPS. The auditor is reviewing our complete CP/CPS in English and the new version will be published as soon as possible. We will keep open mind to process any further issues. Ok, this is what I want to see. Maybe next time you could be more specific about the problems and not just like "translation problem". If you can't describe your opinion exactly in English you can use Chinese and let others translate. But it's best for you to hire a professional translator. Since CPS is very critical, I hope you understand what I said before. I don't want another Wosign incident happen again. Note that he said most of these things already in his post dated Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Enjoy Jakob -- Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8下午7:03:07,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8上午8:51:25,Kathleen Wilson写道: > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:29:56 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > > We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > > > CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > > > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > > > EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > > > > > Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have any > > > questions, please contact us. > > > > > > Thanks to all of you who have reviewed and commented on this request from > > Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 > > ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV > > treatment. > > > > There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the versioning > > problems between the English documents and the original documents. > > > > Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion > > request? > > > > Or should we proceed with reviewing these new English translations of the > > documents, and make our decision based on the new versions? > > > > Thanks, > > Kathleen > > Because we misunderstand that we only need to provide the related chapters of > CP/CPS in English, and non-related sections are not required. We are terribly > sorry that we misinterpreted your requirement and upload an inconsistent > CP/CPS in English. Someone inferred that we don’t utilize a version control > for CP/CPS. In fact, we do have a strict control for master version CP/CPS > (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). > We understand that it is our responsibility to provide accurate English > versions and ensure consistency and synchronicity between Chinese and English > versions. Hence, we have decided to strictly implement version controlling of > English version CP/CPS according to section 1.5 in CP/CPS. The auditor is > reviewing our complete CP/CPS in English and the new version will be > published as soon as possible. > We will keep open mind to process any further issues. Ok, this is what I want to see. Maybe next time you could be more specific about the problems and not just like "translation problem". If you can't describe your opinion exactly in English you can use Chinese and let others translate. But it's best for you to hire a professional translator. Since CPS is very critical, I hope you understand what I said before. I don't want another Wosign incident happen again. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Agree with Gerv & Tony, More patience should be given if they want to improve. And I don’t think “I posted on the solidot (Chinese Slashdot) about this. The majority comments want the application rejected. “is enough to be the reason to reject the request. For many Chinese companies, they do need to learn how to work with global community, they might even have language issues to use English as the working language, for Guang Dong CA case, I can see they are willing to work with the community and we should encourage them to do more. Thanks, Xiaosheng Tan 在 2016/11/15 下午9:08,“dev-security-policy 代表 Tony”写入: 在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8下午5:53:19,Gervase Markham写道: > On 15/11/16 08:39, Percy wrote: > > I posted on the solidot (Chinese Slashdot) about this. The majority > > comments want the application rejected. > > https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en=zh-CN=en=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solidot.org%2Fstory%3Fsid%3D50368 > > That fact, by itself, is not useful information. It would help if you > were to summarise why people feel the application should be rejected, > and how those reasons map to Mozilla's policy requirements. > > Gerv Agreed with Gerv, the reasons for rejection/improvements should be listed very clearly in this case, considering the positive actions taken by CA as it will publish the full new version of CP/CPS in English and implement version control on EN CP/CPS. It's common that Chinese company only maintains one master file policy which is in Chinese based on experience. But if they can do one version control on EN policies, even from now on, it should be deemed as a good improvement. Also, guidance for coaching the CA to enhance the internal controls for the future is needed. More patience shall be given. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8下午5:53:19,Gervase Markham写道: > On 15/11/16 08:39, Percy wrote: > > I posted on the solidot (Chinese Slashdot) about this. The majority > > comments want the application rejected. > > https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en=zh-CN=en=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solidot.org%2Fstory%3Fsid%3D50368 > > That fact, by itself, is not useful information. It would help if you > were to summarise why people feel the application should be rejected, > and how those reasons map to Mozilla's policy requirements. > > Gerv Agreed with Gerv, the reasons for rejection/improvements should be listed very clearly in this case, considering the positive actions taken by CA as it will publish the full new version of CP/CPS in English and implement version control on EN CP/CPS. It's common that Chinese company only maintains one master file policy which is in Chinese based on experience. But if they can do one version control on EN policies, even from now on, it should be deemed as a good improvement. Also, guidance for coaching the CA to enhance the internal controls for the future is needed. More patience shall be given. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:45:23 PM UTC-7, Kathleen Wilson wrote: > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and > enabled EV treatment. > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s Electronic > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations registered in > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or mainland China > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been registered in > mainland China, and software developers. > > The request is documented in the following bug: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > And in the pending certificates list: > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > Noteworthy points: > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > CA Document Repository: > https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > Translations into English: > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated subordinate CAs > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues 2048-bit EV > CodeSigning certs) > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the written > materials which can be used to prove the ownership of corresponding domain > provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the ownership of domain > from corresponding registrant or other authoritative third-party databases. > During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the following procedures: > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate applicant based > on the information queried from corresponding domain registrant or > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as document > information of applicant) in application materials are consistent with the > reply of domain's owner by sending email or making phone call based on the > contact information (such as email, registrar, administrator's email > published at this domain's website, etc.) queried from corresponding domain > registrant or authoritative third-party database. > If necessary, GDCA also need to take other review measures to confirm the > ownership of the domain name. Applicant can't refuse to the request for > providing appropriate assistance. > > > * EV Policy OID: 1.2.156.112559.1.1.6.1 > > * Test Website: https://ev-ssl-test-1.95105813.cn/ > > * CRL URLs: > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.crl > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_SSL_CA.crl > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_Extended_Validation_SSL_CA.crl > > * OCSP URL: > http://www.gdca.com.cn/TrustAUTH/ocsp > > * Audit: Annual audits are performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian LLP > according to the WebTrust criteria. > WebTrust CA: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2024=pdf > WebTrust BR: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2025=pdf > WebTrust EV: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2026=pdf > > * Potentially Problematic Practices: None Noted > (http://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices) > > This begins the discussion of the request from Guangdong Certificate > Authority (GDCA) to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on > the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. At the conclusion of this > discussion I will provide a summary of issues noted and action items. If > there are outstanding issues, then an additional discussion may be needed as > follow-up. If there are no outstanding issues, then I will recommend approval > of this request in the bug. > > Kathleen I posted on the solidot (Chinese Slashdot) about this. The majority comments want the application rejected. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en=zh-CN=en=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solidot.org%2Fstory%3Fsid%3D50368 ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年11月15日星期二 UTC+8上午8:51:25,Kathleen Wilson写道: > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:29:56 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > > CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > > EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > > > Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have any > > questions, please contact us. > > > Thanks to all of you who have reviewed and commented on this request from > Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 > ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. > > There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the versioning > problems between the English documents and the original documents. > > Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion > request? > > Or should we proceed with reviewing these new English translations of the > documents, and make our decision based on the new versions? > > Thanks, > Kathleen If GDCA insists on translation problem, I can't trust it. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:29:56 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 > CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 > EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 > EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 > > Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have any > questions, please contact us. Thanks to all of you who have reviewed and commented on this request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. There were some recommendations to deny this request due to the versioning problems between the English documents and the original documents. Do you all still feel that is the proper answer to this root inclusion request? Or should we proceed with reviewing these new English translations of the documents, and make our decision based on the new versions? Thanks, Kathleen ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:34 PM,wrote: > wangs...@gmail.com於 2016年10月31日星期一 UTC+8下午2時22分05秒寫道: >> 在 2016年10月28日星期五 UTC+8上午8:19:43,Percy写道: >> > "When facing any requirements of laws and regulations or any demands for >> > undergoing legal >> > process of court and other agencies, GDCA must provide confidential >> > information in this CP" >> > >> > Can GDCA specify what other agencies are included? In China, many requests >> > are relayed simply through a phone call without any paper trail or IM and >> > the service providers must meet the demand very quickly. Are such informal >> > procedures honored by GDCA? >> >> Agencies include: public security organization, procuratorate, court. >> The agency is required to meet the following conditions: >> 1. provide paper official letters >> 2. submit application to GDCA on site >> 3. site applicants must be law enforcement officers > > I figured out that you are selling certificates on Taobao.com instead of > handling application on your own website, does it matches your CP and CPS and > if it conflicts with Mozilla's policy? There is nothing in Mozilla's policy that forbids CAs using resellers and/or selling via 3rd party sites. Many, if not most, CAs in the Mozilla program have reseller programs. Thanks, Peter ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月30日星期日 UTC+8下午9:13:32,Gervase Markham写道: > On 29/10/16 22:23, Han Yuwei wrote: > > Is SM2 acceptable in publicy-trusted CAs? I don't think so. > > No; the BRs list the permitted algorithms, and SM2 is not one of them. > > > Maybe Gerv could explain more about this. And I am wondering what can > > CA do if government requirement conflicts with Mozilla's policy? > > It may well be a government requirement that Chinese CAs be able to > issue SM2 certificates. However, no-one has yet demonstrated that it's a > requirement that they do so from specific roots (i.e. the ones trusted > by the major root stores). > > Gerv We know that SM2 is not a permitted algorithm in BRs list. And we only apply for GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT to be included this time. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月28日星期五 UTC+8上午8:19:43,Percy写道: > "When facing any requirements of laws and regulations or any demands for > undergoing legal > process of court and other agencies, GDCA must provide confidential > information in this CP" > > Can GDCA specify what other agencies are included? In China, many requests > are relayed simply through a phone call without any paper trail or IM and the > service providers must meet the demand very quickly. Are such informal > procedures honored by GDCA? Agencies include: public security organization, procuratorate, court. The agency is required to meet the following conditions: 1. provide paper official letters 2. submit application to GDCA on site 3. site applicants must be law enforcement officers ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 29/10/16 22:23, Han Yuwei wrote: > Is SM2 acceptable in publicy-trusted CAs? I don't think so. No; the BRs list the permitted algorithms, and SM2 is not one of them. > Maybe Gerv could explain more about this. And I am wondering what can > CA do if government requirement conflicts with Mozilla's policy? It may well be a government requirement that Chinese CAs be able to issue SM2 certificates. However, no-one has yet demonstrated that it's a requirement that they do so from specific roots (i.e. the ones trusted by the major root stores). Gerv ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月30日星期日 UTC+8上午5:30:23,Peter Bowen写道: > > On Oct 29, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Han Yuweiwrote: > > > > 在 2016年10月28日星期五 UTC+8下午9:23:01,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > >> We are not intended to cover-up anything since we had disclosed every > >> change to the Chinese version CP/CPS at once after the auditor reviewed. > >> The “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 > >> ROOT Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. The “Guangdong Certificate > >> Authority(SM2) ” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 CA > >> Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. We change these names in diagram > >> in this revision in order to show the actual CN of these certificates. > >> Furthermore, we only issue SM2 subscriber certificates from the subCA of > >> “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA. > > > > Is SM2 acceptable in publicy-trusted CAs? I don't think so. > > > > Maybe Gerv could explain more about this. And I am wondering what can CA do > > if government requirement conflicts with Mozilla's policy? > > It is acceptable to have a single CPS that covers CAs that are included the > Mozilla list of trust anchors and CAs that are not trusted by Mozilla. The > CPS should make clear which portions apply to which CA when there are > portions that do not apply to all CAs. > > In this case, I would expect that the ROOTCA(SM2) CA is not proposed for > inclusion in Mozilla. As long as the CPS does not allow issuance of SM2 > signed certificates or certificates with SM2 subject public keys from the CAs > proposed for inclusion in Mozilla, I do not seen an issue. > > Thanks, > Peter I don't see anything about this in Chinese CPS or Bugzilla. Could someone point out or GDCA explain about this? ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月28日星期五 UTC+8上午6:43:30,Han Yuwei写道: > 在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8下午6:22:03,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > > 在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8上午8:09:06,Peter Kurrasch写道: > > > I think these are both good points and my recommendation is that Mozilla > > > deny GDCA's request for inclusion. > > > > > > > > > We should not have to explain something as basic as document versioning > > > and version control. If GDCA can not demonstrate sufficient controls over > > > their documentation, there is no reason for the Internet community to > > > place confidence in any of the other versioning systems that are needed > > > to operate a CA. > > > > > > > > > Question: Are auditors expected to review translations of CP or CPS docs > > > and verify consistency between them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jakob Bohm > > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:07 AM > > > To: mozilla-dev-s...@lists.mozilla.org > > > Subject: Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion > > > request > > > > > > > > > On 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote: > > > > > > > > I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted > > > > for CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation > > > > problem but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying. > > > > > > > > > > Let me try to be more specific: > > > > > > When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document with > > > that number must have the same contents in all languages that have a > > > document with that name and version number. > > > > > > When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, the > > > document becomes a new document version which should have a new and > > > larger number than the number of the document before the change. > > > Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your own > > > server, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a new > > > document version. Some of the oldest CAs have been proudly > > > publishing their various important files at multiple URLs corresponding > > > to whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., only > > > shutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots were > > > shut down. > > > > > > There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and which > > > contains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition. Such > > > a "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not been > > > officially "published". For a well-planned change, the final "draft" > > > would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g. > > > Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and Macao > > > Special Administrative Regions old writing system, English), before > > > simultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same number > > > on the same day. > > > > > > There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choose > > > from. There are also computer programs that can generate new version > > > numbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide when > > > a version is good enough in all languages to make an official > > > publication, and the computer generated version numbers are often > > > impractical for publication because they count all the small steps that > > > were not published. > > > > > > > > > Enjoy > > > > > > Jakob > > > -- > > > Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com > > > Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 > > > This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. &
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
> On Oct 29, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Han Yuweiwrote: > > 在 2016年10月28日星期五 UTC+8下午9:23:01,wangs...@gmail.com写道: >> We are not intended to cover-up anything since we had disclosed every change >> to the Chinese version CP/CPS at once after the auditor reviewed. >> The “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 ROOT >> Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. The “Guangdong Certificate >> Authority(SM2) ” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 CA >> Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. We change these names in diagram in >> this revision in order to show the actual CN of these certificates. >> Furthermore, we only issue SM2 subscriber certificates from the subCA of >> “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA. > > Is SM2 acceptable in publicy-trusted CAs? I don't think so. > > Maybe Gerv could explain more about this. And I am wondering what can CA do > if government requirement conflicts with Mozilla's policy? It is acceptable to have a single CPS that covers CAs that are included the Mozilla list of trust anchors and CAs that are not trusted by Mozilla. The CPS should make clear which portions apply to which CA when there are portions that do not apply to all CAs. In this case, I would expect that the ROOTCA(SM2) CA is not proposed for inclusion in Mozilla. As long as the CPS does not allow issuance of SM2 signed certificates or certificates with SM2 subject public keys from the CAs proposed for inclusion in Mozilla, I do not seen an issue. Thanks, Peter ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月28日星期五 UTC+8下午9:23:01,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > We are not intended to cover-up anything since we had disclosed every change > to the Chinese version CP/CPS at once after the auditor reviewed. > The “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 ROOT > Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. The “Guangdong Certificate > Authority(SM2) ” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 CA > Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. We change these names in diagram in > this revision in order to show the actual CN of these certificates. > Furthermore, we only issue SM2 subscriber certificates from the subCA of > “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA. Is SM2 acceptable in publicy-trusted CAs? I don't think so. Maybe Gerv could explain more about this. And I am wondering what can CA do if government requirement conflicts with Mozilla's policy? ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 27/10/16 23:43, Han Yuwei wrote: > Since Mozilla's working language is English (Not sure about this), That is true. > it's your responsibility to provide an accurate translation of CPS. That is also true. However, we don't require that the English version be the master copy. Gerv ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
We have uploaded the lastest translantion of CP/CPS. CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805543 CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805545 EV CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805546 EV CPS: https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8805547 Because of our English level, there maybe some mistakes. If you have any questions, please contact us. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
We are not intended to cover-up anything since we had disclosed every change to the Chinese version CP/CPS at once after the auditor reviewed. The “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 ROOT Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. The “Guangdong Certificate Authority(SM2) ” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.3 is equivalent to the “SM2 CA Certificate” CA in $1.1.3 of CPS ver4.1. We change these names in diagram in this revision in order to show the actual CN of these certificates. Furthermore, we only issue SM2 subscriber certificates from the subCA of “ROOTCA(SM2)” CA. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
"When facing any requirements of laws and regulations or any demands for undergoing legal process of court and other agencies, GDCA must provide confidential information in this CP" Can GDCA specify what other agencies are included? In China, many requests are relayed simply through a phone call without any paper trail or IM and the service providers must meet the demand very quickly. Are such informal procedures honored by GDCA? ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8下午6:22:03,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > 在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8上午8:09:06,Peter Kurrasch写道: > > I think these are both good points and my recommendation is that Mozilla > > deny GDCA's request for inclusion. > > > > > > We should not have to explain something as basic as document versioning and > > version control. If GDCA can not demonstrate sufficient controls over their > > documentation, there is no reason for the Internet community to place > > confidence in any of the other versioning systems that are needed to > > operate a CA. > > > > > > Question: Are auditors expected to review translations of CP or CPS docs > > and verify consistency between them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jakob Bohm > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:07 AM > > To: mozilla-dev-s...@lists.mozilla.org > > Subject: Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request > > > > > > On 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote: > > > > > > I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted > > > for CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation > > > problem but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying. > > > > > > > Let me try to be more specific: > > > > When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document with > > that number must have the same contents in all languages that have a > > document with that name and version number. > > > > When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, the > > document becomes a new document version which should have a new and > > larger number than the number of the document before the change. > > Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your own > > server, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a new > > document version. Some of the oldest CAs have been proudly > > publishing their various important files at multiple URLs corresponding > > to whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., only > > shutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots were > > shut down. > > > > There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and which > > contains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition. Such > > a "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not been > > officially "published". For a well-planned change, the final "draft" > > would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g. > > Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and Macao > > Special Administrative Regions old writing system, English), before > > simultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same number > > on the same day. > > > > There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choose > > from. There are also computer programs that can generate new version > > numbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide when > > a version is good enough in all languages to make an official > > publication, and the computer generated version numbers are often > > impractical for publication because they count all the small steps that > > were not published. > > > > > > Enjoy > > > > Jakob > > -- > > Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com > > Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 > > This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. > > WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded > > ___ > > dev-security-policy mailing list > > dev-secur...@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy > > We’d like to explain a few points. > > 1. We have already implemented version control on Chinese version CP/CPS, the > revision and release of CP/CPS are reviewed and approve
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月28日星期五 UTC+8上午2:12:32,Percy写道: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 3:22:03 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > > 在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8上午8:09:06,Peter Kurrasch写道: > > > I think these are both good points and my recommendation is that Mozilla > > > deny GDCA's request for inclusion. > > > > > > > > > We should not have to explain something as basic as document versioning > > > and version control. If GDCA can not demonstrate sufficient controls over > > > their documentation, there is no reason for the Internet community to > > > place confidence in any of the other versioning systems that are needed > > > to operate a CA. > > > > > > > > > Question: Are auditors expected to review translations of CP or CPS docs > > > and verify consistency between them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jakob Bohm > > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:07 AM > > > To: mozilla-dev-s...@lists.mozilla.org > > > Subject: Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion > > > request > > > > > > > > > On 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote: > > > > > > > > I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted > > > > for CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation > > > > problem but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying. > > > > > > > > > > Let me try to be more specific: > > > > > > When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document with > > > that number must have the same contents in all languages that have a > > > document with that name and version number. > > > > > > When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, the > > > document becomes a new document version which should have a new and > > > larger number than the number of the document before the change. > > > Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your own > > > server, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a new > > > document version. Some of the oldest CAs have been proudly > > > publishing their various important files at multiple URLs corresponding > > > to whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., only > > > shutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots were > > > shut down. > > > > > > There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and which > > > contains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition. Such > > > a "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not been > > > officially "published". For a well-planned change, the final "draft" > > > would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g. > > > Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and Macao > > > Special Administrative Regions old writing system, English), before > > > simultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same number > > > on the same day. > > > > > > There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choose > > > from. There are also computer programs that can generate new version > > > numbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide when > > > a version is good enough in all languages to make an official > > > publication, and the computer generated version numbers are often > > > impractical for publication because they count all the small steps that > > > were not published. > > > > > > > > > Enjoy > > > > > > Jakob > > > -- > > > Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com > > > Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 > > > This public discussion message is non-binding a
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 3:22:03 AM UTC-7, wangs...@gmail.com wrote: > 在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8上午8:09:06,Peter Kurrasch写道: > > I think these are both good points and my recommendation is that Mozilla > > deny GDCA's request for inclusion. > > > > > > We should not have to explain something as basic as document versioning and > > version control. If GDCA can not demonstrate sufficient controls over their > > documentation, there is no reason for the Internet community to place > > confidence in any of the other versioning systems that are needed to > > operate a CA. > > > > > > Question: Are auditors expected to review translations of CP or CPS docs > > and verify consistency between them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jakob Bohm > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:07 AM > > To: mozilla-dev-s...@lists.mozilla.org > > Subject: Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request > > > > > > On 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote: > > > > > > I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted > > > for CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation > > > problem but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying. > > > > > > > Let me try to be more specific: > > > > When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document with > > that number must have the same contents in all languages that have a > > document with that name and version number. > > > > When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, the > > document becomes a new document version which should have a new and > > larger number than the number of the document before the change. > > Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your own > > server, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a new > > document version. Some of the oldest CAs have been proudly > > publishing their various important files at multiple URLs corresponding > > to whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., only > > shutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots were > > shut down. > > > > There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and which > > contains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition. Such > > a "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not been > > officially "published". For a well-planned change, the final "draft" > > would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g. > > Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and Macao > > Special Administrative Regions old writing system, English), before > > simultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same number > > on the same day. > > > > There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choose > > from. There are also computer programs that can generate new version > > numbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide when > > a version is good enough in all languages to make an official > > publication, and the computer generated version numbers are often > > impractical for publication because they count all the small steps that > > were not published. > > > > > > Enjoy > > > > Jakob > > -- > > Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com > > Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 > > This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. > > WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded > > ___ > > dev-security-policy mailing list > > dev-secur...@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy > > We’d like to explain a few points. > > 1. We have already implemented version control on Chinese version CP/CPS, the > revision and release of CP/CPS
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月27日星期四 UTC+8上午8:09:06,Peter Kurrasch写道: > I think these are both good points and my recommendation is that Mozilla deny > GDCA's request for inclusion. > > > We should not have to explain something as basic as document versioning and > version control. If GDCA can not demonstrate sufficient controls over their > documentation, there is no reason for the Internet community to place > confidence in any of the other versioning systems that are needed to operate > a CA. > > > Question: Are auditors expected to review translations of CP or CPS docs and > verify consistency between them? > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jakob Bohm > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:07 AM > To: mozilla-dev-s...@lists.mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request > > > On 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote: > > > > I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted for > > CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation problem > > but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying. > > > > Let me try to be more specific: > > When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document with > that number must have the same contents in all languages that have a > document with that name and version number. > > When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, the > document becomes a new document version which should have a new and > larger number than the number of the document before the change. > Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your own > server, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a new > document version. Some of the oldest CAs have been proudly > publishing their various important files at multiple URLs corresponding > to whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., only > shutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots were > shut down. > > There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and which > contains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition. Such > a "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not been > officially "published". For a well-planned change, the final "draft" > would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g. > Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and Macao > Special Administrative Regions old writing system, English), before > simultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same number > on the same day. > > There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choose > from. There are also computer programs that can generate new version > numbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide when > a version is good enough in all languages to make an official > publication, and the computer generated version numbers are often > impractical for publication because they count all the small steps that > were not published. > > > Enjoy > > Jakob > -- > Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com > Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 > This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. > WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded > ___ > dev-security-policy mailing list > dev-secur...@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy We’d like to explain a few points. 1. We have already implemented version control on Chinese version CP/CPS, the revision and release of CP/CPS are reviewed and approved by the security policy committee (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). The Chinese version CP/CPS is also reviewed by our auditor. 2. The Chinese version CP/CPS is the formal documents we published in our Website. In the initial phase of "Bug 1128392", we have summited the Chinese version CP/CPS to Mozilla, and Mozilla release a basic review list in file "1128392-CAInformation.pdf" which contains instructions for us to summit some chapters of the CP/CPS in English version. We are n
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
I think these are both good points and my recommendation is that Mozilla deny GDCA's request for inclusion.We should not have to explain something as basic as document versioning and version control. If GDCA can not demonstrate sufficient controls over their documentation, there is no reason for the Internet community to place confidence in any of the other versioning systems that are needed to operate a CA.Question: Are auditors expected to review translations of CP or CPS docs and verify consistency between them?From: Jakob BohmSent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:07 AMTo: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.orgSubject: Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion requestOn 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote:>> I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted for CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation problem but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying.>Let me try to be more specific:When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document withthat number must have the same contents in all languages that have adocument with that name and version number.When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, thedocument becomes a new document version which should have a new andlarger number than the number of the document before the change.Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your ownserver, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a newdocument version. Some of the oldest CAs have been proudlypublishing their various important files at multiple URLs correspondingto whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., onlyshutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots wereshut down.There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and whichcontains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition. Sucha "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not beenofficially "published". For a well-planned change, the final "draft"would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g.Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and MacaoSpecial Administrative Regions old writing system, English), beforesimultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same numberon the same day.There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choosefrom. There are also computer programs that can generate new versionnumbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide whena version is good enough in all languages to make an officialpublication, and the computer generated version numbers are oftenimpractical for publication because they count all the small steps thatwere not published.EnjoyJakob-- Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.comTransformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded___dev-security-policy mailing listdev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.orghttps://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
We have already implemented version control on Chinese version CP/CPS, which include version number (e.g. V4.3) and effective date (e.g. 2016-08-01). The revision and release of CP/CPS are reviewed and approved by the security policy committee (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS). Meanwhile, we are a Chinese company and all of our customers are domestic. We only released the Chinese version of the CP/CPS, the English CP/CPS is only the translation version for reference. It’s our negligence that we did a poor CP/CPS English translation for the latest version (CN version V4.3). After discussion and your suggestion, we will make sure that the same version of CP/CPS will be consistent in all languages in the future. We've reconfirmed that the English version of CP/CPS uploaded by us in 2016-09-27 cannot be consistent with the latest Chinese version. We’ll upload the latest English version CP/CPS to you in this week. Sorry for the inconvenience. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On 21/10/2016 10:38, Han Yuwei wrote: I think this is a major mistake and a investgation should be conducted for CPS is a critical document about CA. This is not just a translation problem but a version control problem. Sometimes it can be lying. Let me try to be more specific: When publishing a document called CPS version 4.3 the document with that number must have the same contents in all languages that have a document with that name and version number. When making any change, even just correcting a mistyped URL, the document becomes a new document version which should have a new and larger number than the number of the document before the change. Thus when a published document refers to a broken URL on your own server, it is often cheaper to repair the server than to publish a new document version. Some of the oldest CAs have been proudly publishing their various important files at multiple URLs corresponding to whatever was mentioned in old CP and CPS documents etc., only shutting down those URLs years after the corresponding CA roots were shut down. There can also be a "draft" document which has no number and which contains the changes that will go into the next numbered edition. Such a "draft" would have no official significance, as it has not been officially "published". For a well-planned change, the final "draft" would be translated and checked into the relevant languages (e.g. Chinese with mainland writing system, Chinese with Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions old writing system, English), before simultaneously publishing the matching documents with the same number on the same day. There are infinitely many version numbers in the universe to choose from. There are also computer programs that can generate new version numbers every time a draft is changed, but computers cannot decide when a version is good enough in all languages to make an official publication, and the computer generated version numbers are often impractical for publication because they count all the small steps that were not published. Enjoy Jakob -- Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月21日星期五 UTC+8下午12:15:07,wangs...@gmail.com写道: > 在 2016年10月21日星期五 UTC+8上午12:15:00,Han Yuwei写道: > > 在 2016年10月20日星期四 UTC+8上午5:27:42,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Thank you for the links. I note, however, that there's at least one > > > difference between the native language version and the English > > > translation: > > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps version 4.3 has a section 4.2.4 covering > > > CAA. > > > https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 version > > > 4.3 > > > in English has no such section. > > > > > > The fact there's a discrepancy is rather worrying. Could you please check > > > and let me know if there are any other substantive differences between the > > > Chinese and English versions? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:17 PM,wrote: > > > > > > > 在 2016年9月27日星期二 UTC+8上午4:15:00,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I have completed a read through of the English translations of the CP > > > > > (v1.2) and CPS (v4.1). Before I post my comments I wanted to see if > > > > > there > > > > > were any more recent translations? It looks like the local language > > > > > versions are 1.4 and 4.3 respectively. > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kathleen Wilson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to > > > > > > include > > > > the > > > > > > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust > > > > > > bit, > > > > and > > > > > > enabled EV treatment. > > > > > > > > > > > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s > > > > Electronic > > > > > > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations > > > > > > registered in > > > > > > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or > > > > > > mainland > > > > China > > > > > > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been > > > > > > registered > > > > in > > > > > > mainland China, and software developers. > > > > > > > > > > > > The request is documented in the following bug: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > > > > > > > > > > > And in the pending certificates list: > > > > > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > > > > > > > > > > > Noteworthy points: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > > > > > > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > > > > > > > > > > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > > > > > > > > > > > CA Document Repository: https://www.gdca.com.cn/ > > > > > > customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > > > > > > > > > > > Translations into English: > > > > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > > > > > > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > > > > > > > > > > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated > > > > subordinate > > > > > > CAs > > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning > > > > > > certs) > > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV > > > > > > SSL > > > > > > certs) > > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues > > > > 2048-bit > > > > > > EV CodeSigning certs) > > > > > > > > > > > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the > > > > > > written materials which can be used to prove the ownership of > > > > corresponding > > > > > > domain provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the > > > > ownership > > > > > > of domain from corresponding registrant or other authoritative > > > > third-party > > > > > > databases. During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the > > > > > > following > > > > > > procedures: > > > > > > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate > > > > > > applicant > > > > > > based on the information queried from corresponding domain > > > > > > registrant > > > > or > > > > > > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > > > > > > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as > > > > document > > > > > > information of applicant) in application materials are
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月21日星期五 UTC+8上午12:15:00,Han Yuwei写道: > 在 2016年10月20日星期四 UTC+8上午5:27:42,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > > Hello, > > > > Thank you for the links. I note, however, that there's at least one > > difference between the native language version and the English translation: > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps version 4.3 has a section 4.2.4 covering > > CAA. > > https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 version 4.3 > > in English has no such section. > > > > The fact there's a discrepancy is rather worrying. Could you please check > > and let me know if there are any other substantive differences between the > > Chinese and English versions? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Andrew > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:17 PM,wrote: > > > > > 在 2016年9月27日星期二 UTC+8上午4:15:00,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I have completed a read through of the English translations of the CP > > > > (v1.2) and CPS (v4.1). Before I post my comments I wanted to see if > > > > there > > > > were any more recent translations? It looks like the local language > > > > versions are 1.4 and 4.3 respectively. > > > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kathleen Wilson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include > > > the > > > > > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, > > > and > > > > > enabled EV treatment. > > > > > > > > > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s > > > Electronic > > > > > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations registered > > > > > in > > > > > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or mainland > > > China > > > > > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been registered > > > in > > > > > mainland China, and software developers. > > > > > > > > > > The request is documented in the following bug: > > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > > > > > > > > > And in the pending certificates list: > > > > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > > > > > > > > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > > > > > > > > > Noteworthy points: > > > > > > > > > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > > > > > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > > > > > > > > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > > > > > > > > > CA Document Repository: https://www.gdca.com.cn/ > > > > > customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > > > > > > > > > Translations into English: > > > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > > > > > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > > > > > > > > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated > > > subordinate > > > > > CAs > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL > > > > > certs) > > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues > > > 2048-bit > > > > > EV CodeSigning certs) > > > > > > > > > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > > > > > > > > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the > > > > > written materials which can be used to prove the ownership of > > > corresponding > > > > > domain provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the > > > ownership > > > > > of domain from corresponding registrant or other authoritative > > > third-party > > > > > databases. During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the > > > > > following > > > > > procedures: > > > > > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate > > > > > applicant > > > > > based on the information queried from corresponding domain registrant > > > or > > > > > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > > > > > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as > > > document > > > > > information of applicant) in application materials are consistent with > > > the > > > > > reply of domain's owner by sending email or making phone call based on > > > the > > > > > contact information (such as email, registrar, administrator's email > > > > > published at this domain's website, etc.) queried from corresponding > > > domain > > > > > registrant or authoritative third-party database. > > > > > If necessary, GDCA also need to take
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月21日星期五 UTC+8上午10:52:42,Percy写道: > Thanks for bringing the discrepancy into our attention. > Even the cover page of the English and Chinese version of CPS are dated > differently. > > English > Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority > CO., LTD. > Certification Practice Statement (CPS) Version: V4.3 > Effective Date: July 1, 2016 > > Chinese > 数安时代科技股份有限公司 > 电子认证业务规则 > 版本:V4.3 > 生效日期:2016 年 8 月 1 日 (Effective date: August 1st, 2016) > > > In 1.1.3 3) the Chinese version shows ROOTCA(SM2) - Guangdong Certificate > Authority(SM2) while the English version shows ROOTCA(SM2) - SM2 CA > Certificate. > > I saw 4) included in the English version about 1.1.3 5) 数安时代 R5 根 CA and 6) > GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT > are completely missing in the English version. > > I translated the 6) section below. > > GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT uses ECC, with the root key length 384-bit . It has 7 > sub-CA. 1)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 EV SSL CA with key length 256-bit and it signs > 256-bit EV SSL servers. 2)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 OV SSL CA and it signs 256-bit OV > SSL certs for servers. (3)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 IV SSL CA,256-bit key and signs > 256-bit IV SSL certs for servers; (4)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 DV SSL CA,256-bit key > and signs 256-bit DV SSL certs for servers; (5)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 CodeSigning > CA 256-bit key,and signs 256-bit code certs;(6)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 Generic CA, > 256-bit,signed 256-bit certs for organizations and individuals ;(7)GDCA > TrustAUTH E4 Primer CA, 256-bit,and signs 256-bit personal certs. > > GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT will expire on 2040 Dec 31st. > GDCA TrustAUTH E4 EV SSL CA will expire on 2030 Dec 31st. From 2027 Jan,1st > ,no new certs will be signed with it. > …( More expiration date stuff) > > GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT 、数安时代 R5 根 CA 证书、GDCA > TrustAUTH E5 ROOT’s intermediate certs: GDCA conforms to the latest version > of CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of > Publicly Trusted SSL Digital Certificates published at www.cabforum.org. In > the event that a discrepancy arises between interpretations of this document > and Baseline Requirement, the Baseline Requirement shall govern. > > This is as far as I read. There are probably many more inconsistencies as > Yuwei pointed out. > I suggest Mozilla ask a staff who know Chinese to fully translate the Chinese > CPS yourself and compare with the provided English CPS Hi Andrew,Yuwei and Percy: Thank you for your reviews of our CP and CPS. The effective date of Chinese version was August 1 while the English version was July 1. We are now translating a new English version which match the Chinese version. We will upload a new English version next week when the translation is all complete. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Thanks for bringing the discrepancy into our attention. Even the cover page of the English and Chinese version of CPS are dated differently. English Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority CO., LTD. Certification Practice Statement (CPS) Version: V4.3 Effective Date: July 1, 2016 Chinese 数安时代科技股份有限公司 电子认证业务规则 版本:V4.3 生效日期:2016 年 8 月 1 日 (Effective date: August 1st, 2016) In 1.1.3 3) the Chinese version shows ROOTCA(SM2) - Guangdong Certificate Authority(SM2) while the English version shows ROOTCA(SM2) - SM2 CA Certificate. I saw 4) included in the English version about 1.1.3 5) 数安时代 R5 根 CA and 6) GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT are completely missing in the English version. I translated the 6) section below. GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT uses ECC, with the root key length 384-bit . It has 7 sub-CA. 1)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 EV SSL CA with key length 256-bit and it signs 256-bit EV SSL servers. 2)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 OV SSL CA and it signs 256-bit OV SSL certs for servers. (3)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 IV SSL CA,256-bit key and signs 256-bit IV SSL certs for servers; (4)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 DV SSL CA,256-bit key and signs 256-bit DV SSL certs for servers; (5)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 CodeSigning CA 256-bit key,and signs 256-bit code certs;(6)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 Generic CA, 256-bit,signed 256-bit certs for organizations and individuals ;(7)GDCA TrustAUTH E4 Primer CA, 256-bit,and signs 256-bit personal certs. GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT will expire on 2040 Dec 31st. GDCA TrustAUTH E4 EV SSL CA will expire on 2030 Dec 31st. From 2027 Jan,1st ,no new certs will be signed with it. …( More expiration date stuff) GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT 、数安时代 R5 根 CA 证书、GDCA TrustAUTH E5 ROOT’s intermediate certs: GDCA conforms to the latest version of CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly Trusted SSL Digital Certificates published at www.cabforum.org. In the event that a discrepancy arises between interpretations of this document and Baseline Requirement, the Baseline Requirement shall govern. This is as far as I read. There are probably many more inconsistencies as Yuwei pointed out. I suggest Mozilla ask a staff who know Chinese to fully translate the Chinese CPS yourself and compare with the provided English CPS ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年10月20日星期四 UTC+8上午5:27:42,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > Hello, > > Thank you for the links. I note, however, that there's at least one > difference between the native language version and the English translation: > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps version 4.3 has a section 4.2.4 covering > CAA. > https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 version 4.3 > in English has no such section. > > The fact there's a discrepancy is rather worrying. Could you please check > and let me know if there are any other substantive differences between the > Chinese and English versions? > > Cheers, > > Andrew > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:17 PM,wrote: > > > 在 2016年9月27日星期二 UTC+8上午4:15:00,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I have completed a read through of the English translations of the CP > > > (v1.2) and CPS (v4.1). Before I post my comments I wanted to see if there > > > were any more recent translations? It looks like the local language > > > versions are 1.4 and 4.3 respectively. > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kathleen Wilson > > wrote: > > > > > > > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include > > the > > > > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, > > and > > > > enabled EV treatment. > > > > > > > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s > > Electronic > > > > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations registered in > > > > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or mainland > > China > > > > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been registered > > in > > > > mainland China, and software developers. > > > > > > > > The request is documented in the following bug: > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > > > > > > > And in the pending certificates list: > > > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > > > > > > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > > > > > > > Noteworthy points: > > > > > > > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > > > > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > > > > > > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > > > > > > > CA Document Repository: https://www.gdca.com.cn/ > > > > customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > > > > > > > Translations into English: > > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > > > > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > > > > > > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated > > subordinate > > > > CAs > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL > > > > certs) > > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues > > 2048-bit > > > > EV CodeSigning certs) > > > > > > > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > > > > > > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the > > > > written materials which can be used to prove the ownership of > > corresponding > > > > domain provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the > > ownership > > > > of domain from corresponding registrant or other authoritative > > third-party > > > > databases. During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the following > > > > procedures: > > > > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate applicant > > > > based on the information queried from corresponding domain registrant > > or > > > > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > > > > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as > > document > > > > information of applicant) in application materials are consistent with > > the > > > > reply of domain's owner by sending email or making phone call based on > > the > > > > contact information (such as email, registrar, administrator's email > > > > published at this domain's website, etc.) queried from corresponding > > domain > > > > registrant or authoritative third-party database. > > > > If necessary, GDCA also need to take other review measures to confirm > > the > > > > ownership of the domain name. Applicant can't refuse to the request for > > > > providing appropriate assistance. > > > > > > > > > > > > * EV Policy OID: 1.2.156.112559.1.1.6.1 > > > > > > > > * Test Website: https://ev-ssl-test-1.95105813.cn/ > > > > > > > > * CRL URLs:
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Hello, Thank you for the links. I note, however, that there's at least one difference between the native language version and the English translation: http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps version 4.3 has a section 4.2.4 covering CAA. https://bug1128392.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8795091 version 4.3 in English has no such section. The fact there's a discrepancy is rather worrying. Could you please check and let me know if there are any other substantive differences between the Chinese and English versions? Cheers, Andrew On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:17 PM,wrote: > 在 2016年9月27日星期二 UTC+8上午4:15:00,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > > Hello, > > > > I have completed a read through of the English translations of the CP > > (v1.2) and CPS (v4.1). Before I post my comments I wanted to see if there > > were any more recent translations? It looks like the local language > > versions are 1.4 and 4.3 respectively. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Andrew > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kathleen Wilson > wrote: > > > > > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include > the > > > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, > and > > > enabled EV treatment. > > > > > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s > Electronic > > > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations registered in > > > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or mainland > China > > > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been registered > in > > > mainland China, and software developers. > > > > > > The request is documented in the following bug: > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > > > > > And in the pending certificates list: > > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > > > > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > > > > > Noteworthy points: > > > > > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > > > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > > > > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > > > > > CA Document Repository: https://www.gdca.com.cn/ > > > customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > > > > > Translations into English: > > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > > > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > > > > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated > subordinate > > > CAs > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL > > > certs) > > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues > 2048-bit > > > EV CodeSigning certs) > > > > > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > > > > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the > > > written materials which can be used to prove the ownership of > corresponding > > > domain provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the > ownership > > > of domain from corresponding registrant or other authoritative > third-party > > > databases. During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the following > > > procedures: > > > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate applicant > > > based on the information queried from corresponding domain registrant > or > > > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > > > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as > document > > > information of applicant) in application materials are consistent with > the > > > reply of domain's owner by sending email or making phone call based on > the > > > contact information (such as email, registrar, administrator's email > > > published at this domain's website, etc.) queried from corresponding > domain > > > registrant or authoritative third-party database. > > > If necessary, GDCA also need to take other review measures to confirm > the > > > ownership of the domain name. Applicant can't refuse to the request for > > > providing appropriate assistance. > > > > > > > > > * EV Policy OID: 1.2.156.112559.1.1.6.1 > > > > > > * Test Website: https://ev-ssl-test-1.95105813.cn/ > > > > > > * CRL URLs: > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.crl > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_SSL_CA.crl > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_Extended_ > > > Validation_SSL_CA.crl > > > > > > * OCSP URL: > > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/TrustAUTH/ocsp > > > > > > * Audit:
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年9月27日星期二 UTC+8上午4:15:00,Andrew R. Whalley写道: > Hello, > > I have completed a read through of the English translations of the CP > (v1.2) and CPS (v4.1). Before I post my comments I wanted to see if there > were any more recent translations? It looks like the local language > versions are 1.4 and 4.3 respectively. > > Many thanks, > > Andrew > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kathleen Wilsonwrote: > > > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the > > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and > > enabled EV treatment. > > > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s Electronic > > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations registered in > > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or mainland China > > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been registered in > > mainland China, and software developers. > > > > The request is documented in the following bug: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > > > And in the pending certificates list: > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > > > Noteworthy points: > > > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > > > CA Document Repository: https://www.gdca.com.cn/ > > customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > > > Translations into English: > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated subordinate > > CAs > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL > > certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues 2048-bit > > EV CodeSigning certs) > > > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the > > written materials which can be used to prove the ownership of corresponding > > domain provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the ownership > > of domain from corresponding registrant or other authoritative third-party > > databases. During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the following > > procedures: > > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate applicant > > based on the information queried from corresponding domain registrant or > > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as document > > information of applicant) in application materials are consistent with the > > reply of domain's owner by sending email or making phone call based on the > > contact information (such as email, registrar, administrator's email > > published at this domain's website, etc.) queried from corresponding domain > > registrant or authoritative third-party database. > > If necessary, GDCA also need to take other review measures to confirm the > > ownership of the domain name. Applicant can't refuse to the request for > > providing appropriate assistance. > > > > > > * EV Policy OID: 1.2.156.112559.1.1.6.1 > > > > * Test Website: https://ev-ssl-test-1.95105813.cn/ > > > > * CRL URLs: > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.crl > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_SSL_CA.crl > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_Extended_ > > Validation_SSL_CA.crl > > > > * OCSP URL: > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/TrustAUTH/ocsp > > > > * Audit: Annual audits are performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian > > LLP according to the WebTrust criteria. > > WebTrust CA: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2024=pdf > > WebTrust BR: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2025=pdf > > WebTrust EV: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2026=pdf > > > > * Potentially Problematic Practices: None Noted > > (http://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices) > > > > This begins the discussion of the request from Guangdong Certificate > > Authority (GDCA) to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn > > on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. At the conclusion of > > this discussion I will provide a summary of issues noted and action items. > > If there are outstanding issues, then an additional discussion may be > > needed as follow-up. If
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
> Dear Peter, Thanks for your comments! We think that there are some good > suggestions for our work. We’ll take notes and do better in our future work. > >> We have discussed these questions with our auditor. Here are our reply to > your comments: > > - The basic WebTrust for CA Report does not cover controls that provide > assurance that subordinate CA certificate requests are accurate, > authenticated, and approved (the management assertion does, so this indicates > the auditor might have found issues with the controls) > Reply: We've > communicated with our auditor, they said that in the period of time report, > we did not generate any subordinate certificates, which means that no > subordinate certificate request happened during the audit period. So that the > subordinate certificate request did not be mentioned in the audit report. >> > - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include Subordinate > CA [cross-]certification in the list of CA services. > Reply: We do not have > any external sub-CAs, so it’s no need to include the cross-certs in the list. > >> - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include > "Subordinate CA Certificate Lifecycle Management Controls" in the list of > portions of criteria used > Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs, so > it’s not applicable. You have one or more CAs that have a non-zero path constraint. Therefore they are able to issue certificates to subordinate CAs, whether operated by your organization or externally operated. As such, it is important that the CA have controls around issuing CA certificates and that the auditor has reasonable assurance the controls function as designed. Reply: We’ve communicated with our auditor and knew that they always performed design effectiveness audit to all of our controls, include controls around issuing CA certificates. As there is no subordinate certificate request happened during the audit period, it was not mentioned in the audit report. It’s a good suggestion, they would specify the controls around issuing CA certificates in the future report no matter if it happens. > - After the reporting period ended, GDCA issued at least two new subordinate > CA certificates from the R5 root. These use the organization name of "Global > Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd." and have keys and key IDs that are > identical to those found in CA certificates for GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE > AUTHORITY CO.,LTD. This is problematic as re-use of key IDs with different > issuer names causes problems on some platforms. Additionally the separate DN > means it is out of scope for the submitted report. Combined with the lack of > audited controls around subordinate CA management, CAs outside of the scope > of the report may be a significant concern. > Reply: Our company has changed > the name from “GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY CO.,LTD.” to “Global Digital > Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd.” in this year, which was after the period > in time audit. We have informed the Mozilla of the name change in advance. We > also announced the name change to the public in our official website. I understand it was a name change. However you issued new CA certificates with the new name which means you do issue CA certificates from time to time. Reply: The issuing of new CA certificates was after the period of audit report. We’ve informed Mozilla of the situation that we’ve issued new CA certificates which only changed the DN because of our company’s name change to facilitate our customers' use. During the issuing process, we also consulted our auditor about the format of new CA certificates. Also, if we don't change the DN of certificates, it will be difficult for browser users to confirm the identity of us when they visit the website whose certificate was signed by us because the CA name in certificate is “Guangdong certificate…” while our actual name is “Global Digital…”. It may cause unnecessary puzzle to browser users. > - The Baseline + Network Security Requirements report and management > assertion only covers two of the CAs. However the cross-certs issued by the > root to the subordinate CAs do not include EKU constraints, so the > subordinate CAs are capable of issuing server authentication ("SSL") > certificates. The assertion and report should include all CAs that are > capable of issuing server authentication certificates. > Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs. The question is not whether you have external sub-CAs, but whether all the CAs that are subordinate to your root have controls around issuance of server authentication certificates. Reply: Our CA system has realized the control that only appointed CA certificates can issue SSL certificates. We’ve communicated with our auditor and confirmed that the control effectiveness has been covered in their audit work. So only CA certificates mentioned in the management
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
在 2016年9月17日星期六 UTC+8上午5:38:29,Percy写道: > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:45:23 PM UTC-7, Kathleen Wilson wrote: > > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the > > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and > > enabled EV treatment. > > > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s Electronic > > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations registered in > > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or mainland China > > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been registered in > > mainland China, and software developers. > > > > The request is documented in the following bug: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > > > And in the pending certificates list: > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > > > Noteworthy points: > > > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > > > CA Document Repository: > > https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > > > Translations into English: > > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated subordinate > > CAs > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL > > certs) > > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues 2048-bit EV > > CodeSigning certs) > > > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the written > > materials which can be used to prove the ownership of corresponding domain > > provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the ownership of > > domain from corresponding registrant or other authoritative third-party > > databases. During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the following > > procedures: > > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate applicant > > based on the information queried from corresponding domain registrant or > > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as document > > information of applicant) in application materials are consistent with the > > reply of domain's owner by sending email or making phone call based on the > > contact information (such as email, registrar, administrator's email > > published at this domain's website, etc.) queried from corresponding domain > > registrant or authoritative third-party database. > > If necessary, GDCA also need to take other review measures to confirm the > > ownership of the domain name. Applicant can't refuse to the request for > > providing appropriate assistance. > > > > > > * EV Policy OID: 1.2.156.112559.1.1.6.1 > > > > * Test Website: https://ev-ssl-test-1.95105813.cn/ > > > > * CRL URLs: > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.crl > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_SSL_CA.crl > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_Extended_Validation_SSL_CA.crl > > > > * OCSP URL: > > http://www.gdca.com.cn/TrustAUTH/ocsp > > > > * Audit: Annual audits are performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian > > LLP according to the WebTrust criteria. > > WebTrust CA: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2024=pdf > > WebTrust BR: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2025=pdf > > WebTrust EV: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2026=pdf > > > > * Potentially Problematic Practices: None Noted > > (http://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices) > > > > This begins the discussion of the request from Guangdong Certificate > > Authority (GDCA) to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn > > on the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. At the conclusion of > > this discussion I will provide a summary of issues noted and action items. > > If there are outstanding issues, then an additional discussion may be > > needed as follow-up. If there are no outstanding issues, then I will > > recommend approval of this request in the bug. > > > > Kathleen > > https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=www.gdca.com.cn > This server is vulnerable to the OpenSSL Padding Oracle vulnerability > (CVE-2016-2107) and
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:56 AM,wrote: > Dear Peter, Thanks for your comments! We think that there are some good > suggestions for our work. We’ll take notes and do better in our future work. > > We have discussed these questions with our auditor. Here are our reply to > your comments: > > - The basic WebTrust for CA Report does not cover controls that provide > assurance that subordinate CA certificate requests are accurate, > authenticated, and approved (the management assertion does, so this indicates > the auditor might have found issues with the controls) > Reply: We've communicated with our auditor, they said that in the period of > time report, we did not generate any subordinate certificates, which means > that no subordinate certificate request happened during the audit period. So > that the subordinate certificate request did not be mentioned in the audit > report. > > - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include > Subordinate CA [cross-]certification in the list of CA services. > Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs, so it’s no need to include the > cross-certs in the list. > > - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include > "Subordinate CA Certificate Lifecycle Management Controls" in the list of > portions of criteria used > Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs, so it’s not applicable. You have one or more CAs that have a non-zero path constraint. Therefore they are able to issue certificates to subordinate CAs, whether operated by your organization or externally operated. As such, it is important that the CA have controls around issuing CA certificates and that the auditor has reasonable assurance the controls function as designed. > - After the reporting period ended, GDCA issued at least two new subordinate > CA certificates from the R5 root. These use the organization name of "Global > Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd." and have keys and key IDs that are > identical to those found in CA certificates for GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE > AUTHORITY CO.,LTD. This is problematic as re-use of key IDs with different > issuer names causes problems on some platforms. Additionally the separate DN > means it is out of scope for the submitted report. Combined with the lack of > audited controls around subordinate CA management, CAs outside of the scope > of the report may be a significant concern. > Reply: Our company has changed the name from “GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE > AUTHORITY CO.,LTD.” to “Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd.” in > this year, which was after the period in time audit. We have informed the > Mozilla of the name change in advance. We also announced the name change to > the public in our official website. I understand it was a name change. However you issued new CA certificates with the new name which means you do issue CA certificates from time to time. > - The Baseline + Network Security Requirements report and management > assertion only covers two of the CAs. However the cross-certs issued by the > root to the subordinate CAs do not include EKU constraints, so the > subordinate CAs are capable of issuing server authentication ("SSL") > certificates. The assertion and report should include all CAs that are > capable of issuing server authentication certificates. > Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs. The question is not whether you have external sub-CAs, but whether all the CAs that are subordinate to your root have controls around issuance of server authentication certificates. > - The Baseline report does not provide an option that GDCA "maintained > effective controls to provide reasonable assurance that it meets the Network > and Certificate System Security Requirements as set forth by the CA/Browser > Forum" > Reply: The Baseline report issued by our auditor follows the “Webtrust > Principles and Criteria for Certification Authorities – SSL Baseline with > Network Security - Version 2.0” which is based on “Baseline Requirements for > the Issuance and Management of Publicly – Trusted Certificates - Version > 1.1.6” and “Network and Certificate Systems Security Requirement - Version > 1.0”.(Please refer to > http://www.webtrust.org/homepage-documents/item79806.pdf) So the SSL report > has covered the assurance of the Network and Certificate System Security > Requirement. We’ve also communicated with the auditor and confirmed that > their audit work include the Network and Certificate System Security > Requirement. I'm glad that the auditor has confirmed to you they did include the Network Security criteria. However without it being included in their report, it is not possible for a third party to have assurance they did. > - The Extended Validation report and management assertion attempts to merge > the Extended Validation SSL and Extended Validation Code Signing criteria. > These should be distinct reports. As writtten,
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
Dear Peter, Thanks for your comments! We think that there are some good suggestions for our work. We’ll take notes and do better in our future work. We have discussed these questions with our auditor. Here are our reply to your comments: Opportunties for Improvement: - The basic WebTrust Report and assertion do not specify location(s) where services are provided. Other reports do indicate the services are provided in/from China. Reply: It’s not a mandatory requirement but a good suggestion, we’ve told our auditor and they would use the new report template published by WebTrust/PKI Task Force in next year's audit which will specify the location. - The opinions do not specify the list of Certification Authorities in scope Reply: Our company has changed the name from “GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY CO.,LTD.” to “Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd.” in this year. We do not have any external sub-CAs, so it’s no need to list the CAs in scope. https://www.gdca.com.cn/about_gdca/CTrends/new/Notification-of-Company-Name-Change/ https://www.gdca.com.cn/about_gdca/CTrends/new/-00119/ - The reports and asssertions do not specify the versions of the CP and CPS Reply: It’s not a mandatory requirement but a good suggestion, we’ve told our auditor and they would use the new report template published by WebTrust/PKI Task Force in next year's audit which will specify the version of the CP and CPS. - The management assertion appendixes mix keys and certificates. The certificate is not the interesting part; the CA Distinguished Name (DN), type (Root or not), Key, and Key ID are the interesting parts. Reply: It’s a good suggestion. We may consider to specify them in our future assertion. - The BR report repeats a bullet under "Maintained effective controls to provide reasonable assurance that:" Reply: We’ve confirmed with the auditor and it’s just a clerical error in auditor’s report. Bad: - The basic WebTrust for CA Report does not cover controls that provide assurance that subordinate CA certificate requests are accurate, authenticated, and approved (the management assertion does, so this indicates the auditor might have found issues with the controls) Reply: We've communicated with our auditor, they said that in the period of time report, we did not generate any subordinate certificates, which means that no subordinate certificate request happened during the audit period. So that the subordinate certificate request did not be mentioned in the audit report. - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include Subordinate CA [cross-]certification in the list of CA services. Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs, so it’s no need to include the cross-certs in the list. - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include "Subordinate CA Certificate Lifecycle Management Controls" in the list of portions of criteria used Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs, so it’s not applicable. - After the reporting period ended, GDCA issued at least two new subordinate CA certificates from the R5 root. These use the organization name of "Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd." and have keys and key IDs that are identical to those found in CA certificates for GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY CO.,LTD. This is problematic as re-use of key IDs with different issuer names causes problems on some platforms. Additionally the separate DN means it is out of scope for the submitted report. Combined with the lack of audited controls around subordinate CA management, CAs outside of the scope of the report may be a significant concern. Reply: Our company has changed the name from “GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY CO.,LTD.” to “Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd.” in this year, which was after the period in time audit. We have informed the Mozilla of the name change in advance. We also announced the name change to the public in our official website. - The Baseline + Network Security Requirements report and management assertion only covers two of the CAs. However the cross-certs issued by the root to the subordinate CAs do not include EKU constraints, so the subordinate CAs are capable of issuing server authentication ("SSL") certificates. The assertion and report should include all CAs that are capable of issuing ser authentication certificates. Reply: We do not have any external sub-CAs. - The Baseline report does not provide an option that GDCA "maintained effective controls to provide reasonable assurance that it meets the Network and Certificate System Security Requirements as set forth by the CA/Browser Forum" Reply: The Baseline report issued by our auditor follows the “Webtrust Principles and Criteria for Certification Authorities – SSL Baseline with Network Security - Version 2.0” which is based on “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kathleen Wilsonwrote: > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and > enabled EV treatment. > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated subordinate CAs > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues 2048-bit EV > CodeSigning certs) > > * Audit: Annual audits are performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian LLP > according to the WebTrust criteria. > WebTrust CA: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2024=pdf > WebTrust BR: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2025=pdf > WebTrust EV: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2026=pdf Kathleen and team, I reviewed the annual audit reports linked in your email, including the auditor's opinion and the management assertions. Good: - The reports and management assertion include an English language version - The English versions are authoritative (no qualification the Chinese language version holds in case of conflict) - The reports clearly state they use the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 standard - The report and assertion use the current version of the criteria - The assertions include details of each CA in the appendix, including an indication of whether it is a Root CA and a cryptographic hash (fingerprint) associated with each CA Opportunties for Improvement: - The basic WebTrust Report and assertion do not specify location(s) where services are provided. Other reports do indicate the services are provided in/from China. - The opinions do not specify the list of Certification Authorities in scope - The reports and asssertions do not specify the versions of the CP and CPS - The management assertion appendixes mix keys and certificates. The certificate is not the interesting part; the CA Distinguished Name (DN), type (Root or not), Key, and Key ID are the interesting parts. - The BR report repeats a bullet under "Maintained effective controls to provide reasonable assurance that:" Bad: - The basic WebTrust for CA Report does not cover controls that provide assurance that subordinate CA certificate requests are accurate, authenticated, and approved (the management assertion does, so this indicates the auditor might have found issues with the controls) - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include Subordinate CA [cross-]certification in the list of CA services - The basic WebTrust for CA Management assertion does not include "Subordinate CA Certificate Lifecycle Management Controls" in the list of portions of criteria used - After the reporting period ended, GDCA issued at least two new subordinate CA certificates from the R5 root. These use the organization name of "Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd." and have keys and key IDs that are identical to those found in CA certificates for GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY CO.,LTD. This is problematic as re-use of key IDs with different issuer names causes problems on some platforms. Additionally the separate DN means it is out of scope for the submitted report. Combined with the lack of audited controls around subordinate CA management, CAs outside of the scope of the report may be a significant concern. - The Baseline + Network Security Requirements report and management assertion only covers two of the CAs. However the cross-certs issued by the root to the subordinate CAs do not include EKU constraints, so the subordinate CAs are capable of issuing server authentication ("SSL") certificates. The assertion and report should include all CAs that are capable of issuing ser authentication certificates. - The Baseline report does not provide an option that GDCA "maintained effective controls to provide reasonable assurance that it meets the Network and Certificate System Security Requirements as set forth by the CA/Browser Forum" - The Extended Validation report and management assertion attempts to merge the Extended Validation SSL and Extended Validation Code Signing criteria. These should be distinct reports. As writtten, the report fails to adequately cover the EVCS critera. The WebTrust/PKI Task Force has published a draft set of illustrative reports to use as a basis (http://www.webtrust.org/practitioner-qualifications/item83253.pdf), so it should be faily easy to resolve the missing bits. Thanks, Peter ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: Guang Dong Certificate Authority (GDCA) root inclusion request
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:45:23 PM UTC-7, Kathleen Wilson wrote: > This request from Guangdong Certificate Authority (GDCA) is to include the > "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on the Websites trust bit, and > enabled EV treatment. > > GDCA is a nationally recognized CA that operates under China’s Electronic > Signature Law. GDCA’s customers are business corporations registered in > mainland China, government agencies of China, individuals or mainland China > citizens, servers of business corporations which have been registered in > mainland China, and software developers. > > The request is documented in the following bug: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128392 > > And in the pending certificates list: > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:PendingCAs > > Summary of Information Gathered and Verified: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8749437 > > Noteworthy points: > > * Root Certificate Download URL: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8748933 > https://www.gdca.com.cn/cert/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.der > > * The primary documents are provided in Chinese. > > CA Document Repository: > https://www.gdca.com.cn/customer_service/knowledge_universe/cp_cps/ > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/cp > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/cps > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cp/ev-cp > http://www.gdca.com.cn/cps/ev-cps > > Translations into English: > CP: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8650346 > CPS: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8688749 > > * CA Hierarchy: This root certificate has internally-operated subordinate CAs > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 SSL CA (issues 2048-bit SSL certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Generic CA (issues 2048-bit individual certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 CodeSigning CA (issues 2048-bit CodeSigning certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation SSL CA (issues 2048-bit EV SSL certs) > - GDCA TrustAUTH R4 Extended Validation Code Signing CA (issues 2048-bit EV > CodeSigning certs) > > * This request is to turn on the Websites trust bit. > > CPS section 3.2.5: For domain verification, GDCA needs to check the written > materials which can be used to prove the ownership of corresponding domain > provided by applicant. Meanwhile, GDCA should ensure the ownership of domain > from corresponding registrant or other authoritative third-party databases. > During the verification, GDCA needs to perform the following procedures: > 1. GDCA should confirm that the domain's owner is certificate applicant based > on the information queried from corresponding domain registrant or > authoritative third-party database and provided by applicant. > 2. GDCA should confirm that the significant information (such as document > information of applicant) in application materials are consistent with the > reply of domain's owner by sending email or making phone call based on the > contact information (such as email, registrar, administrator's email > published at this domain's website, etc.) queried from corresponding domain > registrant or authoritative third-party database. > If necessary, GDCA also need to take other review measures to confirm the > ownership of the domain name. Applicant can't refuse to the request for > providing appropriate assistance. > > > * EV Policy OID: 1.2.156.112559.1.1.6.1 > > * Test Website: https://ev-ssl-test-1.95105813.cn/ > > * CRL URLs: > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R5_ROOT.crl > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_SSL_CA.crl > http://www.gdca.com.cn/crl/GDCA_TrustAUTH_R4_Extended_Validation_SSL_CA.crl > > * OCSP URL: > http://www.gdca.com.cn/TrustAUTH/ocsp > > * Audit: Annual audits are performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian LLP > according to the WebTrust criteria. > WebTrust CA: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2024=pdf > WebTrust BR: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2025=pdf > WebTrust EV: https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=2026=pdf > > * Potentially Problematic Practices: None Noted > (http://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices) > > This begins the discussion of the request from Guangdong Certificate > Authority (GDCA) to include the "GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT" certificate, turn on > the Websites trust bit, and enabled EV treatment. At the conclusion of this > discussion I will provide a summary of issues noted and action items. If > there are outstanding issues, then an additional discussion may be needed as > follow-up. If there are no outstanding issues, then I will recommend approval > of this request in the bug. > > Kathleen https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=www.gdca.com.cn This server is vulnerable to the OpenSSL Padding Oracle vulnerability (CVE-2016-2107) and insecure. Grade set to F. Maybe someone who has more expertise than me could take a look at this? ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org