The audits are more deficient than just the minimum number. If a CA issues a
million certs to one customer, the entire 3% audit will be that single
customer. If that system is automated, all other customers and systems are
effectively masked.  I haven't figured out to expand the audit requirement
though. Perhaps a minimum that is something along the lines of the greater
of 3% of certificates with a unique profile and five cert? An alternative is
3% of certificates with a unique base domain?

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gervase
Markham via Public
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 4:47 AM
To: CABFPub <[email protected]>
Cc: Gervase Markham <[email protected]>
Subject: [cabfpub] Changing numbers of self-audited certificates

Currently, the BRs define, in section 8.7, the parameters for self-audits
and audits of certificates below a TCSC. At the moment, the number of certs
randomly chosen to be audited is defined as "the greater of one certificate
or at least three percent of the Certificates issued".

I think that auditing just a single certificate (which is currently OK up
until 33 are issued) makes it too easy to overlook problems when volumes are
small. I propose instead a 5-certificate minimum, or 3%, whichever is
larger. In other words:

Issued Audited
0      0
1      1
.....
5      5
6      5
.....
166    5
167    6
.....

We could just change the "one" to a "five" if people thought it was obvious
that if you've issued less than five, you just audit all of them. Or we
could expand the text a bit to explicitly describe that.

I would be interested in feedback on the impact of this change. It's been
proposed for the Mozilla policy but as it's a BR stipulation I thought we
should try here first.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

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

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to