Hi Tim, Although we combined Code Signing and Time-stamping certificates into the Minimum Requirements for Code Signing document, I'm thinking that they should not be combined in the Code Signing Working Group. First there may be IP scope issues similar to when we wanted to combine both SSL and Code Signing. Also Time-stamping certificates are used for other applications such as Document Signing (e.g., AATL certificates) or a Time-stamping certificate may be issued for another application.
Would it be better to create a Time-stamping Working Group? We could create a Time-stamp guideline based on the information already documented in the Minimum Requirements for Code Signing. The Code Signing document could refer to the Time-stamp document, but it will also make the Time-stamp document available for other uses. An alternative would be that the Code Signing working group creates the Time-stamp document. Then it could be picked up later by a new working group to manage. This alternative does not address IP scope issues. Thanks, Bruce. From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public Sent: April 24, 2018 11:04 AM To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] For Discussion: Code Signing Working Group Charter A rough first draft, based on text I blatantly stole from the Server Certificate Working Group Charter: Code Signing Working Group Charter Upon approval of the CAB Forum by ballot, the Code Signing Working Group ("Working Group") is created to perform the activities as specified in this Charter, subject to the terms and conditions of the CA/Browser Forum Bylaws and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy, as such documents may change from time to time. The definitions found in the Forum's Bylaws shall apply to capitalized terms in this Charter. SCOPE: The authorized scope of the Code Signing Working Group shall be as follows: 1. To specify Code Signing Baseline Requirements [1], Extended Validation Guidelines [2], Network and Certificate System Security Requirements [3], and other acceptable practices for the issuance and management of code signing certificates used to sign executables, libraries, and apps. 2. To update such requirements and guidelines from time to time, in order to address both existing and emerging threats, including responsibility for the maintenance of and future amendments to the current Code Signing Baseline Requirements, Extended Validation Requirements, and Network and Certificate System Security Requirements. 3. To develop requirements for time stamping certificates and time stamping servers intended to be used in conjunction with code signing certificates. 4. To perform such other activities that are ancillary to the primary activities listed above. OUT OF SCOPE: The Code Signing Working Group will not address certificates intended to be used primarily for client or server authentication, S/MIME, VoIP, IM, or Web services. The Code Signing Working Group will not address the issuance, or management of certificates by enterprises that operate their own Public Key Infrastructure for internal purposes only, and for which the Root Certificate is not distributed by any Application Software Supplier. Anticipated End Date: None. Initial chairs and contacts: TBD [4] Members eligible to participate: The Working Group shall consist of two classes of voting members [5], the Certificate Issuers and the Certificate Consumers. The CA Class shall consist of eligible Certificate Issuers and Root Certificate Issuers meeting the following criteria: (1) Certificate Issuer: The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs audit, or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI 101456, or ETSI EN 319 411-1 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues code-signing certificates, such certificates being treated as valid when verified by software from a Certificate Consumer Member. Applicants that are not actively issuing certificates but otherwise meet membership criteria 7 may be granted Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be designated by the Forum. (2) Root Certificate Issuer: The member organization operates a certification authority that has a current and successful WebTrust for CAs, or ETSI TS 102042, ETSI TS 101456, ETSI EN 319 411-1 audit report prepared by a properly-qualified auditor, and that actively issues code-signing certificates to subordinate CAs that, in turn, actively issue code-signing certificates, such certificates being treated as valid when verified by software from a Certificate Consumer Member. Applicants that are not actively issuing certificates but otherwise meet membership criteria may be granted Associate Member status under Bylaw Sec. 3.1 for a period of time to be designated by the Forum. (3) A Certificate Consumer can participate in this Working Group if it produces a software product intended for use by the general public that can validate and execute signed code. The Working Group shall include Interested Parties and Associate Members as defined in the Bylaws. Voting structure [5]: In order for a ballot to be adopted by the Working Group, two-thirds or more of the votes cast by the Certificate Issuers must be in favor of the ballot and more than 50% of the votes cast by the Certificate Consumers must be in favor of the ballot. At least one member of each class must vote in favor of a ballot for it to be adopted. Quorum is the average number of Member organizations (cumulative, regardless of Class) that have participated in the previous three Code Signing Working Group Meetings or Teleconferences (not counting subcommittee meetings thereof). If three meetings have not yet occurred, quorum is ten (10). Summary of the work that the WG plans to accomplish: As specified in Scope section above. Summary of major WG deliverables and guidelines: As specified in Scope section above. Primary means of communication: listserv-based email, periodic calls, and face-to-face meetings. IPR Policy: The CA/Browser Forum Intellectual Rights Policy, v. 1.3 or later, SHALL apply to all Working Group activity. [1] Not a defined term in the Bylaws, so these are the Code Signing BRs, not the Server Certificate BRs. [2] These would be intended to initially be the EV Code Signing Requirements, from two years ago. [3] It is anticipated these would be kept in sync with the same requirements adopted by the Server Certificate WG, whenever possible. [4] I'd actually like this to be the first topic for the WG to discuss, though I could be convinced we should pick one in advance. [5] Do we want to keep this structure or change it?
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
