-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Improve definition of mis-issuance. Fixes #76
- Loading branch information
Gervase Markham
committed
Jun 8, 2017
1 parent
543d5c8
commit e9a555b
Showing
1 changed file
with
6 additions
and
6 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -606,12 +606,12 @@ Mozilla will take any steps we deem appropriate to protect our users | |
if we learn that a CA has knowingly or intentionally mis-issued one | ||
or more certificates. This may include, but is not limited to | ||
disablement (partially or fully) or removal of all of the CA’s | ||
certificates from Mozilla’s root program. A certificate that includes | ||
domain names that have not been verified according to section 3.2.2.4 of the | ||
[Baseline Requirements][BRs] is considered to be mis-issued. A certificate | ||
that is intended to be used only as an end entity certificate but includes a | ||
keyUsage extension with values keyCertSign and/or cRLSign or a basicConstraints | ||
extension with the cA field set to true is considered to be mis-issued. | ||
certificates from Mozilla’s root program. | ||
|
||
The category of mis-issued certificates includes (but is not limited to) those | ||
issued to someone who should not have received them, those containing | ||
information which was not properly validated, those having incorrect technical | ||
constraints, and those using algorithms other than those permitted. | ||
This comment has been minimized.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment has been minimized.
Sorry, something went wrong.
gerv
Contributor
|
||
|
||
A failure to provide notifications or updates in the CCADB or | ||
as otherwise required in a timely manner SHALL also be grounds for | ||
|
This seems like an opportunity to link to the list of permitted (signature?) algorithms elsewhere in the policy. If no such list is coded into policy, is it the intent of this declaration to prohibit issuance of new algorithms (SHA3, for example)?