Hi Rob,

Thanks.

> If 2, then I suspect that this is out of scope for CT, since it seems likely
> that most CT logs accepted by browsers will only issue SCTs for
> (intermediate or end-entity) certs that chain to publicly-trusted roots.

Yes, this is the case.

Is there a call-out or spec somewhere that states SCT is required of
public CAs; but not CAs for internal or private PKIs?

I'm concerned with an in-house, private PKI and the warnings that have
been showing up in Chrome.

Jeff

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote:
> (Cross-posting to TRANS)
>
> Jeffrey, does "private PKI" mean...
>
> 1. A publicly-trusted root, a publicly-logged intermediate, and non-logged
> end-entity certs.
> or
> 2. A non-publicly-trusted root, a non-logged intermediate, and non-logged
> end-entity certs.
>
> If 1, then please take a look at the mechanism in 6962-bis [1] for logging a
> name-constrained intermediate CA certificate in place of the end-entity
> certs issued under it.
>
> If 2, then I suspect that this is out of scope for CT, since it seems likely
> that most CT logs accepted by browsers will only issue SCTs for
> (intermediate or end-entity) certs that chain to publicly-trusted roots.
>
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/?include_text=1
>
>
> On 22/04/15 00:59, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>
>> According to the CT FAQ at
>> http://www.certificate-transparency.org/faq, there are three ways to
>> avoid warnings in some user agents:
>>
>>    * X509v3 Certificate Extension
>>    * TLS Extension
>>    * OCSP Stapling
>>
>> If a private PKI includes a subordinate in the chain that is name
>> constrained, then can that be used in lieu of the three methods above?
>>
>> RFC 6962 does not discuss it (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962).
>> But I feel like if the problem is issuing server certificates for
>> domains *not* authorized to do so, then name constraints seems like a
>> natural solution.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.

_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

Reply via email to