Dear all,

Regarding „CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root certificates are 
already included in Mozilla’s Root store”, I’d like to point out that we need 
to make sure that we have a common understanding what “CA’S auditor” means. Is 
it a person, a company? Is that entity just currently not auditing other public 
trusted CAs but did so in the past (how long ago) or did the auditors maybe 
work for a different audit company that -did- audits on other public trusted 
CAs… ?

The current wording would also exclude new auditors from ever doing their first 
audit of a public trusted CA… 😉

I think what we all want and expect is that the auditors are experienced, know 
the regulations they have to audit against and have some understanding of what 
“good practice” as CA must show.

Kind regards
Roman

From: dev-security-policy@mozilla.org <dev-security-policy@mozilla.org> On 
Behalf Of Kathleen Wilson
Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2023 19:59
To: dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
Cc: ku...@seifried.org <k...@seifried.org>; Steve Keller <kellerst...@proton.me>
Subject: Re: DRAFT: Root Inclusion Considerations

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:29:54 PM UTC-8 
ku...@seifried.org<mailto:ku...@seifried.org> wrote:
FYI at least one person is being blocked from posting to the list properly for 
reasons unknown.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:04 AM Steve Keller 
<kellerst...@proton.me<mailto:kellerst...@proton.me>> wrote:
Unfortunately it won't let me post. I don't see why it would be harmful to ask 
the community to double-check my work to make sure that I'm not 
misunderstanding the new requirements?
As far as I can tell, there's a number of CAs currently rooted that are already 
engaging in Concerning Behavior, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something or 
Mozilla doesn't like that question?

Steve will need to:
"Subscribe by sending email to: 
dev-security-policy+subscr...@mozilla.org<mailto:dev-security-policy%2bsubscr...@mozilla.org>.
 Membership requests must provide context for your interest in joining the 
group. Requests without this information will be rejected."

Only members can post to this group, otherwise this group would receive a lot 
of spam.


What happens to the CAs engaging in "Concerning Behavior" that currently have 
their root certificates in Mozilla's root store?

Concerning Behavior: "The following situations are concerning and in 
aggregate..."
So concern would be raised when a collection (several) of the main bullet 
points happen.



Mozilla states:
>  If the CA operator currently has root certificates in Mozilla's root store, 
> then Mozilla may remove those root certificates or set them to be distrusted 
> after a specified date.

How much Concerning Behavior would a CA need to engage in before their root 
certificates were removed?

When several of the concerning behaviors exist, then we need to look more 
closely at the CA and do a risk versus value assessment of the CA.


Just a quick review of all the currently included CAs in Mozilla's root store 
and it seems that these CAs are already engaging in Concerning Behavior 
according to the recently announced considerations:

1. Agence Nationale de Certification Electronique - Corruption Perceptions 
Index Score less than 50 (score = 40)
2. certSIGN - Corruption Perceptions Index Score less than 50 (score = 46)
3. China Financial Certification Authority (CFCA) - Internet Freedom Score less 
than 50 (score = 10), Corruption Perceptions Index Score less than 50 (score = 
45)
4. E-Tugra - Internet Freedom Score less than 50 (score = 32), Corruption 
Perceptions Index Score less than 50 (score = 36)
5. eMudhra Technologies Limited - Corruption Perceptions Index Score less than 
50 (score = 40)
6. Global Digital Cybersecurity Authority Co., Ltd. (Formerly Guang Dong 
Certificate Authority (GDCA)) - Internet Freedom Score less than 50 (score = 
10), Corruption Perceptions Index Score less than 50 (score = 45)
7. Government of Hong Kong (SAR), Hongkong Post, Certizen aka "Hongkong Post" - 
Internet Freedom Score less than 50, Corruption Perceptions Index Score less 
than 50
8. Government of Turkey, Kamu Sertifikasyon Merkezi (Kamu SM) aka "TUBITAK" - 
Internet Freedom Score less than 50 (score = 10), Corruption Perceptions Index 
Score less than 50 (score = 45), CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose 
root certificates are already included in Mozilla’s Root store
9. iTrusChina Co., Ltd. - Internet Freedom Score less than 50 (score = 10), 
Corruption Perceptions Index Score less than 50 (score = 45)
10. Microsec Ltd. - Corruption Perceptions Index Score less than 50 (score = 
42), CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root certificates are already 
included in Mozilla’s Root store
11. Netlock - Corruption Perceptions Index Score less than 50 (score = 42), 
CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root certificates are already 
included in Mozilla’s Root store
12. Shanghai Electronic Certification Authority Co., Ltd. aka "UniTrust" - 
Internet Freedom Score less than 50 (score = 10), Corruption Perceptions Index 
Score less than 50 (score = 45)

I am interested in feedback on using the Internet Freedom Score and Corruption 
Perceptions Index when considering CAs...
Is this check useful?
How much should it impact our decisions?
Is it only useful when the CA is also closely aligned with a government 
organization?

13. Actalis - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root certificates 
are already included in Mozilla’s Root store
14. Atos Trustcenter - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root 
certificates are already included in Mozilla’s Root store
15. Buypass - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root certificates 
are already included in Mozilla’s Root store
16. Chunghwa Telecom - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root 
certificates are already included in Mozilla’s Root store
17. Disig, a.s. - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root 
certificates are already included in Mozilla’s Root store
18. e-commerce monitoring GmbH - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose 
root certificates are already included in Mozilla’s Root store
19. HARICA - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root certificates are 
already included in Mozilla’s Root store
20. SwissSign AG - CA's auditor has not audited other CAs whose root 
certificates are already included in Mozilla’s Root store


I think this concern about auditor only auditing one CA means that we might 
need to do more due diligence in regards to verifying that auditor's 
qualifications. Especially when any other items in the Concerning Behaviors 
list apply to the CA.

These are all good questions, and I am very interested to hear feedback from 
CAs who are currently in Mozilla's program and may be impacted by this list.

Thanks,
Kathleen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"dev-security-policy@mozilla.org<mailto:dev-security-policy@mozilla.org>" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
dev-security-policy+unsubscr...@mozilla.org<mailto:dev-security-policy+unsubscr...@mozilla.org>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/b9407f23-c174-4d75-8d4d-1e439408164dn%40mozilla.org<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fa%2Fmozilla.org%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fdev-security-policy%2Fb9407f23-c174-4d75-8d4d-1e439408164dn%2540mozilla.org%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dfooter&data=05%7C01%7Croman.fischer%40swisssign.com%7C93f03ef0bdf44048d9f408db0df4515d%7C21322582607f404c82d950ddb1eca5c9%7C1%7C0%7C638119115228296850%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=20VbGNRrNeTbN5WKFQQ0SFFfTH7KbphcynXSpDmLI1U%3D&reserved=0>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"dev-security-policy@mozilla.org" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to dev-security-policy+unsubscr...@mozilla.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/ZRAP278MB056256574A0BFF4CDA1B28BAFAA29%40ZRAP278MB0562.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
          • ... Kathleen Wilson
            • ... Kathleen Wilson
              • ... Matthew Hardeman
              • ... 'Jeremy Rowley' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
              • ... Ryan Hurst
              • ... Peter Bowen
              • ... 'Moudrick M. Dadashov' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
            • ... 'Kurt Seifried' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
  • Re: DRAFT: Root... 'Kurt Seifried' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
    • Re: DRAFT:... Kathleen Wilson
      • RE: DR... Roman Fischer
        • Re... Kathleen Wilson
          • ... Kathleen Wilson
            • ... Ryan Hurst
              • ... 'Jeremy Rowley' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
              • ... Ryan Hurst
              • ... 'Jeremy Rowley' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
              • ... 'Kurt Seifried' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
              • ... 'Kurt Seifried' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
              • ... 'Jeremy Rowley' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org
              • ... 'Kurt Seifried' via dev-security-policy@mozilla.org

Reply via email to