TL;DR: The CCADB Steering Committee has updated the “All Certificate 
Information (root and intermediate) in CCADB” [1] (aka 
AllCertificateRecordsCSVFormat) report to include two additional columns: 
“Derived Trust Bits” and “Status of Root Cert”

All,

The CCADB Steering Committee has received two problem statements from CAs 
regarding the value and reliability of the AllCertificateRecordsCSVFormat 
report. After discussion and design within the CCADB Steering Committee, an 
enhancement has been made to the report to address these problem statements.

Status of Root Cert
The first problem [2] identified an issue with accurately assessing the 
inclusion status of a given Intermediate Certificate in a Root Store using the 
details provided in the AllCertificateRecordsCSVFormat report. The identified 
solution was to add a new column which matches the content of the “Status of 
Root Cert” field in the CCADB. This field combines the status values from the 
separate Mozilla, Microsoft, Google Chrome, and Apple status fields, 
representing them as a single concatenated string, e.g. “Apple: Included; 
Google Chrome: Included; Microsoft: Included; Mozilla: Included”. This field 
pulls the individual status values from the Root Certificate record, so is the 
same for all Intermediate Certificate records subordinate to a given Root 
Certificate record.

The AllCertificateRecordsCSVFormat report includes several separate columns 
(e.g. ‘Mozilla Status’) that appear similar to the information provided in this 
new column. These Store-specific columns are used on both Root Certificate and 
Intermediate Certificate records. The new column pulls from the same 
information as the Store-specific columns do on Root Certificate records, so in 
this regard the new column is not net-new information. However, on Intermediate 
Certificate records this same field does not always match that of its parent 
Root Certificate record, creating some doubt as to the correct status of 
Intermediate Certificate records.

[Request] Related to this change, the CCADB Steering Committee would like to 
understand if there is any extant reliance on the Store-specific “Status” 
columns. We propose removing those in the future if they are not currently 
being relied upon.

Derived Trust Bits
The second problem identified is a little more straightforward, in that the 
current AllCertificateRecordsCSVFormat report does not include details 
regarding the “trust bits” which the CCADB has determined apply to a given Root 
or Intermediate Certificate record (represented within the CCADB in the 
“Derived Trust Bits” field). This information is helpful in determining a 
variety of expectations about the certificate, such as the applicable audit 
criteria or information disclosure requirements.

It may be important to note that the CCADB’s “Derived Trust Bits” do not, in 
all cases, match other similar data sources [3] which leverage this 
information. In some cases this is because the CCADB incorporates additional 
context and in other cases because the CCADB lacks additional context. We hope 
that this additional column will help us all to better understand where and how 
future improvements to the CCADB should be made.

This updated report has been deployed and is available for use now. If you have 
any concerns with these updates or encounter any issues, please let us know 
(preferentially here, but supp...@ccadb.org <mailto:supp...@ccadb.org> works 
too).

Thank you
- Clint, on Behalf of the CCADB Steering Committee

[1] https://www.ccadb.org/resources
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1850031
[3] https://crt.sh/mozilla-disclosures

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"CCADB Public" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to public+unsubscr...@ccadb.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/ccadb.org/d/msgid/public/F57D6948-3F1A-46F4-9AD7-3763006BC3F8%40apple.com.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to