Hi Ben. I am supportive of this initiative, and intend to participate. Perhaps a small clarification is warranted. Consider limiting the proposed solution to "Publicly-Trusted Certificates", which are defined as follows by CABForum: "A Certificate that is trusted by virtue of the fact that its corresponding Root Certificate is distributed as a trust anchor in widely-available application software".
All the best. Tim. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Laurie Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [therightkey] Certificate Transparency Working Group? Would people be interested in starting a WG on Certificate Transparency? If so, how about a BoF in Atlanta? Here's a draft charter... CT IETF WG Draft Charter Objective Specify mechanisms and techniques that allow Internet applications to monitor and verify the issuance of public X.509 certificates such that all public issued certificates are available to applications, and each certificate seen by an application can be efficiently shown to be in the log of issued certificates. Furthermore, it should be possible to cryptographically verify the correct operation of the log. Optionally, do the same for certificate revocations. Problem Statement Currently it is possible for any CA to issue a certificate for any site without any oversight. This has led to some high profile mis-issuance of certificates, such as by DigiNotar, a subsidiary of VASCO Data Security International, in July 2011 (http://www.vasco.com/company/about_vasco/press_room/news_archive/2011/news_diginotar_reports_security_incident.aspx). The aim is to make it possible to detect such mis-issuance promptly through the use of a public log of all public issued certificates. Domain owners can then monitor this log and, upon detecting mis-issuance, take appropriate action. This public log must also be able to efficiently demonstrate its own correct operation, rather than introducing yet another party that must be trusted into the equation. Clients should also be able to efficiently verify that certificates they receive have indeed been entered into the public log. For revocations, the aim would be similar: ensure that revocations are as expected, that clients can efficiently obtain the revocation status of a certificate and that the log is operating correctly. Also, in both cases, the solution must be usable by browsers - this means that it cannot add any round trips to page fetches, and that any data transfers that are mandatory are of a reasonable size. _______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey _______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
