Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
OK, so in that case KISA itself is becoming an auditor. Would KISA then
issue audit reports about the various CAs in question? What would be the
pros and cons of having each licensed CA approved instead of KISA as a
wild card CA for a whole country?
One
On 3/30/2008 4:57 AM, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
Hi Frank,
I agree with everything you said below for regular, standard CAs. This
is what the policy knew when it was written. There is a CA, they have a
root and some intermediate CA certificates (according to the
recommendations
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
I agree with everything you said below for regular, standard CAs. This
is what the policy knew when it was written. There is a CA, they have a
root and some intermediate CA certificates (according to the
recommendations after all), they are one entity taking
Frank Hecker wrote, On 2008-03-30 04:29:
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
OK, so in that case KISA itself is becoming an auditor. Would KISA then
issue audit reports about the various CAs in question? What would be the
pros and cons of having each licensed CA approved instead of KISA as a
Frank, in order to continue the discussion below I really want to
understand first
1.) If our stated goal is simply to facilitate the inclusion of as many
CAs as possible
2.) If the principals guiding us are limited to the Mozilla CA policy only
3.) And if is, what we want, simply to provide
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
But I believe we have already decided, in principle, to approve certs for
CAs that are subordinate to some root that is not approved, when the
subordinate CA meets the criteria, but the root does not.
Yes, I recall this discussion. However in the KISA case my opinion is
Frank Hecker:
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
But I believe we have already decided, in principle, to approve certs for
CAs that are subordinate to some root that is not approved, when the
subordinate CA meets the criteria, but the root does not.
Yes, I recall this discussion. However in
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
I think the question raised with that CA was also, if the audit covers
the whole CA infrastructure, i.e. all different independent CAs
operating under the KISA root. If I remember right, the CPS has no
provision in that respect and the audit covers only
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.):
KISA is a CA authorized and commissioned by the their government,
however the operating CAs are not government CAs, but regular CAs with
commercial interests etc. So this makes it a bit tricky I think...
I forgot to add, that there is a difference between a CA
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
Also many times there are some umbrella CAs setup to support those
regulations and by including them, it will include automatically a bunch
of other CAs as well. I believe KISA is such a CA...??
Yes, as noted in the bug KISA/KCAC doesn't issue end entity
Hi Frank,
Having had a look at this request last summer and followed the entries
of Gerv I wanted to ask you some quick question before investing more
time on this...
As per your comment 61
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335197#c61 how did you
establish the audit performed by
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
As per your comment 61
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335197#c61 how did you
establish the audit performed by the Korean Ministry of Information and
Communication to be equivalent to the Webtrust (assuming AICPA)
criteria?
This was stated by
12 matches
Mail list logo
