Ben,

I'd prefer that we tie this to a date related to when the domain validations 
are done, or perhaps 2 statements.  As it stands (and as others have 
commented), on July 1 all customers will immediately need to validate all 
domains that were done between 825 and 397 days ago, so a huge number all at 
once for web site owners and for CAs.

I'd prefer that it says " Domain validations performed from July 1, 2021 may be 
reused for a maximum of 398 days ".  I understand that this basically kick the 
can down the road for an extra year and that may not be acceptable, so, maybe 
we specify 2 dates:

1)  Domain validations performed on or after July 1, 2021 may be reused for a 
maximum of 398 days.

2)  for server certificates issued on or after Feb 1, 2022, each dNSName or 
IPAddress in a SAN must have been validated within the prior 398 days

Is that a compromise you could consider?

Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: dev-security-policy <dev-security-policy-boun...@lists.mozilla.org> On 
Behalf Of Ben Wilson via dev-security-policy
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 2:08 PM
To: Mozilla <mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: Policy 2.7.1: MRSP Issue #206: Limit re-use of domain name 
verification to 398 days

All,

I continue to move this Issue #206 forward with a proposed change to section 
2.1 of the MRSP (along with an effort to modify section 3.2.2.4 or section 
4.2.1 of the CA/B Forum's Baseline Requirements).

Currently, I am still contemplating adding a subsection 5.1 to MRSP section
2.1 that would read,
" 5.1. for server certificates issued on or after July 1, 2021, verify each 
dNSName or IPAddress in a SAN or commonName at an interval of 398 days or less;"

See draft language here
https://github.com/BenWilson-Mozilla/pkipolicy/commit/69bddfd96d1d311874c35c928abdfc13dc11aba3


Ben

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:00 PM Ben Wilson <bwil...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I have started a similar, simultaneous discussion with the CA/Browser 
> Forum, in order to gain traction.
>
> <http://goog_583396726>
>
> https://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2020-December/00238
> 2.html
>
> Ben
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:49 PM Jeremy Rowley 
> <jeremy.row...@digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Should this limit on reuse also apply to s/MIME? Right now, the 825 
>> day limit in Mozilla policy only applies to TLS certs with email 
>> verification of s/MIME being allowed for infinity time.  The first 
>> draft of the language looked like it may change this while the newer 
>> language puts back the TLS limitation. If it's not addressed in this 
>> update, adding clarification on domain verification reuse for SMIME 
>> would be a good improvement on the existing policy.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev-security-policy 
>> <dev-security-policy-boun...@lists.mozilla.org>
>> On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via dev-security-policy
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 2:22 PM
>> To: Ryan Sleevi <r...@sleevi.com>
>> Cc: Doug Beattie <doug.beat...@globalsign.com>; Mozilla < 
>> mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
>> Subject: Re: Policy 2.7.1: MRSP Issue #206: Limit re-use of domain 
>> name verification to 398 days
>>
>> See my responses inline below.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:34 PM Ryan Sleevi <r...@sleevi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:22 PM Ben Wilson via dev-security-policy < 
>> > dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> See responses inline below:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:40 AM Doug Beattie 
>> >> <doug.beat...@globalsign.com
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Ben,
>> >> >
>> >> > For now I won’t comment on the 398 day limit or the date which 
>> >> > you
>> >> propose
>> >> > this to take effect (July 1, 2021), but on the ability of CAs to 
>> >> > re-use domain validations completed prior to 1 July for their 
>> >> > full
>> >> > 825 re-use period.  I'm assuming that the 398 day limit is only 
>> >> > for those domain validated on or after 1 July, 2021.  Maybe that 
>> >> > is your intent, but the wording is not clear (it's never been 
>> >> > all that
>> >> > clear)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yes. (I agree that the wording is currently unclear and can be 
>> >> improved, which I'll work on as discussion progresses.)  That is 
>> >> the intent - for certificates issued beginning next July--new 
>> >> validations would be valid for
>> >> 398 days, but existing, reused validations would be sunsetted and 
>> >> could be used for up to 825 days (let's say, until Oct. 1, 2023, 
>> >> which I'd advise against, given the benefits of freshness provided 
>> >> by re-performing methods in BR 3.2.2.4 and BR 3.2.2.5).
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why? I have yet to see a compelling explanation from a CA about why 
>> > "grandfathering" old validations is good, and as you note, it 
>> > undermines virtually every benefit that is had by the reduction 
>> > until
>> 2023.
>> >
>>
>> I am open to the idea of cutting off the tail earlier, at let's say, 
>> October 1, 2022, or earlier (see below).  I can work on language that 
>> does that.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Ben, could you explain the rationale why this is better than the 
>> > simpler, clearer, and immediately beneficial for Mozilla users of 
>> > requiring new validations be conducted on-or-after 1 July 2021? Any 
>> > CA that had concerns would have ample time to ensure there is a 
>> > fresh domain validation before then, if they were concerned.
>> >
>>
>> I don't have anything yet in particular with regard to a 
>> pros-cons/benefits-analysis-supported rationale, except that I expect 
>> push-back from SSL/TLS certificate subscribers and from CAs on their 
>> behalf. You're right, CAs could take the time between now and July 
>> 1st to obtain 398-day validations, but my concern is with the potential 
>> push-back.
>>
>> Also, as I mentioned before, I am interested in proposing this as a 
>> ballot in the CA/Browser Forum and seeing where it goes. I realize 
>> that this issue might come with added baggage from the history 
>> surrounding the validity-period changes that were previously defeated 
>> in the Forum, but it would still be good to see it adopted there 
>> first. Nonetheless, this issue is more than ripe enough to be resolved here 
>> by Mozilla as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Doug, could you explain more about why it's undesirable to do that?
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Could you consider changing it to read more like this (feel free 
>> >> > to edit as needed):
>> >> >
>> >> > CAs may re-use domain validation for subjectAltName 
>> >> > verifications of dNSNames and IPAddresses done prior to July 1, 
>> >> > 2021 for up to
>> >> > 825 days
>> >> <in
>> >> > accordance with domain validation re-use in the BRs, section  4.2.1>.
>> >> CAs
>> >> > MUST limit domain re-use for subjectAltName verifications of 
>> >> > dNSNames
>> >> and
>> >> > IPAddresses to 398 days for domains validated on or after July 
>> >> > 1,
>> 2021.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. I am open to all suggestions and improvements to the language.
>> >> I'll
>> >> see how this can be phrased appropriately to reduce the chance for 
>> >> misinterpretation.
>> >>
>> >
>> > As noted above, I think adopting this wording would prevent much
>> > (any?) benefit from being achieved until 2023. I can understand 
>> > that
>> > 2023 is better than "never", but I'm surprised to see an agreement 
>> > so quickly to that being desirable over 2021. I suspect there's 
>> > ample context here, but I think it would benefit from discussion.
>> >
>>
>> The language needs to be worked on some more.  As I note above, we 
>> should come up with a cutoff date that is before 2023. It seems that 
>> two years is too long to wait for the last 825-day validation to 
>> expire when there are domain validation methods that work in a matter of 
>> seconds.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> > From a CA perspective, I don't have any major concerns with 
>> >> > shortening
>> >> the
>> >> > domain re-use periods, but customers do/will.  Will there be a 
>> >> > Mozilla
>> >> blog
>> >> > that outlines the security improvements with cutting the re-use 
>> >> > period
>> >> in
>> >> > half and why July 2021 is the right time?
>> >
>> > >
>> >>
>> >> Yes.  I'll prepare a blog post that outlines the security 
>> >> improvements to be obtained by shortening the reuse period. (E.g., 
>> >> certificates should not contain stale information.) July 2021 was 
>> >> chosen because I figured April
>> >> 2021 would be too soon. It also allows CAs to schedule any needed 
>> >> system work during Q2/2021. In my opinion, Oct. 2023 is a 
>> >> considerably long tail for this change, and existing 
>> >> domains/customers should not be affected until then.
>> >
>> >
>> > Right, my concern is that it's "too long" a tail. There's no real 
>> > benefit in July 2021 - the benefits aren't really met until Oct 2023.
>> >
>>
>> Other options for a cutoff, other than July 2021 or October 2022, 
>> could be December 1, 2021, January 31, 2022, or July 1, 2022.
>>
>> Ben
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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

_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to