Hi Martijn, Thanks for sending this out for discussion. Just a few comments at this point:
I’m not sure the wording "Router and firewall activities" is considered an
unspecified term, and leaves the exact definition and scope up to the CA,
however” is necessary or even really helpful. I think it would be clearer to
introduce Section 5.4.1.1 with something like “Logging of router and firewall
activities necessary to meet the requirements of Section 5.4.1, Subsection 3.6
MUST at a minimum include:”
I’m not sold on the “Subsection” part, but I don’t recall if we have good
semantics established for referencing the numbered paragraphs/sections under a
Section heading.
I think the entire section including and under "Logging of router and firewall
activities SHOULD NOT include:” should be removed.
The first item listed seems overly broad (arguably, imo, even covering the
“inbound and outbound” connections of the second item) and so making it a
SHOULD NOT seems too strong a recommendation.
The second item seems counterintuitive and difficult to implement
correctly+consistently. It could be read as something like “don’t log unless
you know you’re being exploited”, which doesn’t sound like a recommendation we
should be making (especially in the context of post-incident data analysis).
Neither of these recommendations seems necessary to accomplish the goals of
additional clarity and specificity of what MUST be logged.
The concluding sentence "CAs are encouraged to recommend additional MUST and
SHOULD NOT requirements through an email to questi...@cabforum.org, for future
discussion within the appropriate Working Group.” stands out as I think it’s
the only such “encouragement” in the BRs. I don’t think that makes it bad or
that it should be removed, but I’m also not sure how valuable it is to the BRs
as a policy. I admit that may be because I view this encouragement as
fundamental to membership and participation in the CA/B Forum at all — every
member, regardless of type, should feel welcome and encouraged to recommend
changes to any of the CA/B Forum documents. But we don’t say that anywhere, so
maybe this is a good start?
Cheers!
-Clint
> On Jan 29, 2024, at 10:30 AM, Martijn Katerbarg via Servercert-wg
> <servercert-wg@cabforum.org> wrote:
>
> Summary:
>
> This ballot aims to clarify what data needs to be logged as part of the
> "Firewall and router activities" logging requirement in the Baseline
> Requirements.
>
> This ballot is proposed by Martijn Katerbarg (Sectigo) and endorsed by Daniel
> Jeffery (Fastly) and Ben Wilson (Mozilla).
>
> --- Motion Begins ---
>
> This ballot modifies the “Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and
> Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates" ("Baseline Reuqirements"), based
> on Version 2.0.2.
>
> MODIFY the Baseline Requirements as specified in the following Redline:
> https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/compare/41f01640748fa612386f8b1a3031cd1bff3d4f35...807675c91c8500157b0ffd58ab3a40b0b17075e5
>
> --- Motion Ends ---
>
> This ballot proposes a Final Maintenance Guideline. The procedure for
> approval of this ballot is as follows:
>
> Discussion (at least 7 days)
>
> Start time: 2024-01-29 18:30:00 UTC
> End time: not before 2024-02-05 18:30:00 UTC
> Vote for approval (7 days)
>
> Start time: TBD
> End time: TBD
>
> _______________________________________________
> Servercert-wg mailing list
> Servercert-wg@cabforum.org <mailto:Servercert-wg@cabforum.org>
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Servercert-wg mailing list Servercert-wg@cabforum.org https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
