It's from the BRs 4.9.1.1: The CA SHALL revoke a Certificate within 24 hours if one or more of the following occurs:
It's also not a penalty on the CA, it's a remediation step for them to undertake. Alex On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy < dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: > Some people seemed to require 24-hour revocation of these, which I also > find possibly excessive. > > On 08/08/2017 20:28, Alex Gaynor wrote: > >> I think you're largely objecting to a strawman, no one is proposing >> revoking trust in any of these threads. >> >> The only CAs that have ever had _any_ penalty applied to them have been >> for >> grotesque abuse of the trust vested in them. >> >> Alex >> >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy < >> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: >> >> On 08/08/2017 18:43, Ryan Sleevi wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:05:06 PM UTC+9, Jakob Bohm wrote: >>>> >>>> I was not advocating "letting everyone decide". I was advocating that >>>>> Mozilla show some restraint, intelligence and common sense in wielding >>>>> the new weapons that certlint and crt.sh have given us. >>>>> >>>>> This shouldn't be race as to who wields the weapon first, forgiving CAs >>>>> only if they happen to report faster than some other newsgroup >>>>> participant. >>>>> >>>>> This is similar to if a store boss gets a new surveillance camera in >>>>> the >>>>> shop and sees that some employees are taking extra breaks when there >>>>> are >>>>> few customers in the store. It would be unreasonable for such a store >>>>> boss to discipline this with similar zeal as seeing some employees >>>>> genuinely steeling cash out of the register or selling stolen items out >>>>> of the back door. Instead the fact that they work less when there is >>>>> less work to do should inspire reevaluation of any old rule that they >>>>> are not allowed to have a watercooler chat during work hours. >>>>> >>>>> Now such a reevaluation might result in requiring them to use such >>>>> occasions to clean the floors or do some other chores (Mozilla equiv: >>>>> Deciding that the rule is important for good reason and needs to be >>>>> followed in the future) or it could result in relaxing the rule as >>>>> long as they stand ready the moment a customer arrives (Mozilla equiv: >>>>> Relaxing the requirement, initially just for Mozilla, later perhaps as >>>>> a >>>>> BR change). >>>>> >>>>> Dogmatically insisting on enforcing rules that were previously not >>>>> enforced due to lack of detection, just because "rules are rules" or >>>>> other such arguments seems overzealous. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Such tools have been available for over a year. CAs have been aware of >>>> this, the ability to run it over their own corpus and self-detect and >>>> self-report. These tools, notably, were created by one of the newest CA >>>> applicants - Amazon - based on a methodical study of what is required >>>> of a >>>> CA. >>>> >>>> Your attempts to characterize it as overzealous ignore this entirely. At >>>> this point, it's gross negligence, and attempts to argue otherwise >>>> merely >>>> suggest a lack of understanding or concern for standards compliance and >>>> interoperability. >>>> >>>> Mozilla has already communicated to CAs these tools exist and their >>>> relevance to CAs. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we can move on from misguided apologetics and instead focus on >>>> how to make things better. Suggestions we ignore these, at this point, >>>> are >>>> neither productive nor relevant. Attempts to suggest tortured metaphors >>>> are >>>> like attempting to suggest rich people deserve to be robbed, or poor >>>> people >>>> just need to work harder - arguments that are both hollow and borderline >>>> offensive in their reductionism. A pattern of easily preventable >>>> misissuance has been happening,CAs have been repeatedly told to >>>> self-detect, and clearly, some CAs, like presumably some businesses, >>>> aren't >>>> taking security seriously. That needs to stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> I am questioning the fairness of applying these tools, which did not >>> exist when the rules were written, to enforce every rule with the same >>> high weight. I am not apologizing for bad behavior, I am saying if >>> everybody gets scrutinized this hard, we will eventually have to >>> distrust pretty much all the CAs, because there is no such thing as a >>> perfect CA organization. >>> >>> So we need to prioritize the rules instead of just saying off-with- >>> their-heads (revoke all affected certificates in 24 hours) whenever any >>> formal rule was broken without actually harming security. >>> >>> An example of a graduated response: >>> >>> - Deliberately issued super-interception certificate: Instant revocation >>> of CA trust. >>> - SubCA that does no vetting at all: Instant revocation and adding to >>> OneCRL. >>> - Certificate issued to someone who should not have it (like the github >>> certs issued by WoSign): 24 hour revocation, faster if possible. >>> - Certificate that violates rules and triggers a bug preventing Mozilla >>> NSS from detecting if it is revoked: 24 hour revocation and adding >>> special case code to NSS to treat this form of certificate as not valid >>> instead of non-revocable. >>> - Certificate issued in such a way as to increase the risk of >>> post-issuance attacks (such as SHA-1 cert issued in 2016 or later with >>> insufficient random bits near the start of the TBSCertificate): 24 hour >>> revocation of cert itself, issuing SubCA revoked with 2 month delay to >>> replace affected good certificates from a new clean SubCA. >>> - Single Certificate that violates rules, but works with revocation >>> checking in NSS and was issued to the proper party (possesses domains, >>> matches any real world identity in DN etc.): Revoke after 14 days, try >>> to replace before that. >>> - Thousands of certificates that violate rules, but work with revocation >>> checking in NSS and were issued to the proper parties (example: O= >>> field replaced by "test" after full vetting of actual name): Revoke >>> after 2 months, try to replace before that. >>> - Certificate that violates a previously unclear interpretation of a >>> rule, but works with revocation checking in NSS and was issued to the >>> proper party (example: 20 byte serial withe extra leading 0 byte, if >>> NSS revocation didn't fail on that): Clarify rule, but only revoke if >>> it has more than 9 months left before expiry. >>> >>> Comparison with some recent cases: >>> >>> Symantec's Korean RA replaced O with test (a minor thing, since no real >>> organization was impersonated), but also failed to keep proper vetting >>> records (a major thing, requiring urgent revocation). >>> >>> The interpretation of the 20 byte serial rule as being "160 arbitrary >>> bits, sometimes encoded as a 23 byte DER structure (1 byte tag, 1 byte >>> length, 1 leading 0, 20 significant bytes) would have been a lack of >>> clarity and a future requirement, had it not been for the apparent fact >>> (I haven't tested this) that NSS would be unable to detect revocation of >>> such certs, but would accept them regardless of actual revocation, which >>> escalates it to urgent revocation and a security bug filed against NSS >>> to either block all such certs or implement revocation checking for >>> them. >>> >>> Certificates issued with the IDNA in a SAN, but the equivalent unicode >>> in CN: Falls in the 14 day bucket or perhaps the 9 month bucket >>> (depending on clarity of old rules). This is if NSS will only look >>> at the SANs anyway when there is at least one SAN, as is required by >>> once of the RFCs. Ditto if NSS would not successfully match any network >>> name to the UNICODE CN, because no pure ASCII string would compare equal >>> to a string with at least one significant non-ASCII char. >>> >>> >>> > > 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 > _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy