1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

This document describes an integrated set of technologies, protocols, identity-proofing, lifecycle management, and auditing requirements that are necessary (but not sufficient) for the issuance and management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates; Certificates that are trusted by virtue of the fact that their corresponding Root Certificate is distributed in widely-available application software. The requirements are not mandatory for Certification Authorities unless and until they become adopted and enforced by relying-party Application Software Suppliers.

Notice to Readers

The CP for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates describe a subset of the requirements that a Certification Authority must meet in order to issue Publicly Trusted TLS Server Certificates. This document serves two purposes: to specify Baseline Requirements and to provide guidance and requirements for what a CA should include in its CPS. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, these Requirements apply only to relevant events that occur on or after 1 July 2012 (the original effective date of these requirements).

These Requirements do not address all of the issues relevant to the issuance and management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates. In accordance with RFC 3647 and to facilitate a comparison of other certificate policies and CPSs (e.g. for policy mapping), this document includes all sections of the RFC 3647 framework. However, rather than beginning with a “no stipulation” comment in all empty sections, the CA/Browser Forum is leaving such sections initially blank until a decision of “no stipulation” is made. The CA/Browser Forum may update these Requirements from time to time, in order to address both existing and emerging threats to online security. In particular, it is expected that a future version will contain more formal and comprehensive audit requirements for delegated functions.

These Requirements only address Certificates intended to be used for authenticating servers accessible through the Internet. Similar requirements for code signing, S/MIME, time-stamping, VoIP, IM, Web services, etc. may be covered in future versions.

These Requirements do 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.

These Requirements are applicable to all Certification Authorities within a chain of trust. They are to be flowed down from the Root Certification Authority through successive Subordinate Certification Authorities.

1.2 Document name and identification

This certificate policy (CP) contains the requirements for the issuance and management of publicly-trusted TLS Server certificates, as adopted by the CA/Browser Forum.

The following Certificate Policy identifiers are reserved for use by CAs to assert compliance with this document (OID arc 2.23.140.1.2) as follows:

{joint-iso-itu-t(2) international-organizations(23) ca-browser-forum(140) certificate-policies(1) baseline-requirements(2) domain-validated(1)} (2.23.140.1.2.1); and

{joint-iso-itu-t(2) international-organizations(23) ca-browser-forum(140) certificate-policies(1) baseline-requirements(2) organization-validated(2)} (2.23.140.1.2.2); and

{joint-iso-itu-t(2) international-organizations(23) ca-browser-forum(140) certificate-policies(1) baseline-requirements(2) individual-validated(3)} (2.23.140.1.2.3).

1.2.1 Revisions

* Effective Date and Additionally Relevant Compliance Date(s)

1.2.2 Relevant Dates

1.3 PKI Participants

The CA/Browser Forum is a voluntary organization of Certification Authorities and suppliers of Internet browser and other relying-party software applications.

1.3.1 Certification Authorities

Certification Authority (CA) is defined in Section 1.6. Current CA Members of the CA/Browser Forum are listed here: https://cabforum.org/members.

1.3.2 Registration Authorities

With the exception of Section 3.2.2.4 and Section 3.2.2.5, the CA MAY delegate the performance of all, or any part, of Section 3.2 requirements to a Delegated Third Party, provided that the process as a whole fulfills all of the requirements of Section 3.2.

Before the CA authorizes a Delegated Third Party to perform a delegated function, the CA SHALL contractually require the Delegated Third Party to:

1. Meet the qualification requirements of Section 5.3.1, when applicable to the delegated function;
2. Retain documentation in accordance with Section 5.5.2;
3. Abide by the other provisions of these Requirements that are applicable to the delegated function; and
4. Comply with
   1. the CA’s Certificate Policy/Certification Practice Statement or
   2. the Delegated Third Party’s practice statement that the CA has verified complies with these Requirements.

The CA MAY designate an Enterprise RA to verify certificate requests from the Enterprise RA’s own organization. The CA SHALL NOT accept certificate requests authorized by an Enterprise RA unless the following requirements are satisfied:

1. The CA SHALL confirm that the requested Fully-Qualified Domain Name(s) are within the Enterprise RA’s verified Domain Namespace.
2. If the certificate request includes a Subject name of a type other than a Fully-Qualified Domain Name, the CA SHALL confirm that the name is either that of the delegated enterprise, or an Affiliate of the delegated enterprise, or that the delegated enterprise is an agent of the named Subject. For example, the CA SHALL NOT issue a Certificate containing the Subject name “XYZ Co.” on the authority of Enterprise RA “ABC Co.”, unless the two companies are affiliated (see Section 3.2) or “ABC Co.” is the agent of “XYZ Co”. This requirement applies regardless of whether the accompanying requested Subject FQDN falls within the Domain Namespace of ABC Co.’s Registered Domain Name.

The CA SHALL impose these limitations as a contractual requirement on the Enterprise RA and monitor compliance by the Enterprise RA.

1.3.3 Subscribers

As defined in Section 1.6.1.

In some situations, a CA acts as an Applicant or Subscriber, for instance, when it generates and protects a Private Key, requests a Certificate, demonstrates control of a Domain, or obtains a Certificate for its own use.

1.3.4 Relying Parties

“Relying Party” and “Application Software Supplier” are defined in Section 1.6.1. Current Members of the CA/Browser Forum who are Application Software Suppliers are listed here:
https://cabforum.org/members.

1.3.5 Other Participants

Other groups that have participated in the development of these Requirements include the AICPA/CICA WebTrust for Certification Authorities task force and ETSI ESI. Participation by such groups does not imply their endorsement, recommendation, or approval of the final product.

1.4 Certificate Usage

1.4.1 Appropriate Certificate Uses

The primary goal of these Requirements is to enable efficient and secure electronic communication, while addressing user concerns about the trustworthiness of Certificates. These Requirements also serve to inform users and help them to make informed decisions when relying on Certificates.

1.4.2 Prohibited Certificate Uses

No stipulation.

1.5 Policy administration

The Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates present criteria established by the CA/Browser Forum for use by Certification Authorities when issuing, maintaining, and revoking publicly-trusted TLS Server Certificates. This document may be revised from time to time, as appropriate, in accordance with procedures adopted by the CA/Browser Forum. Because one of the primary beneficiaries of this document is the end user, the Forum openly invites anyone to make recommendations and suggestions by email to the CA/Browser Forum at questions@cabforum.org. The Forum members value all input, regardless of source, and will seriously consider all such input.

1.5.1 Organization Administering the Document

No stipulation.

1.5.2 Contact Person

Contact information for the CA/Browser Forum is available here: https://cabforum.org/leadership/. In this section of a CA’s CPS, the CA shall provide a link to a web page or an email address for contacting the person or persons responsible for operation of the CA.

1.5.3 Person Determining CPS suitability for the policy

No stipulation.

1.5.4 CPS approval procedures

No stipulation.

1.6 Definitions and Acronyms

The Definitions found in the CA/Browser Forum’s Network and Certificate System Security Requirements are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

1.6.1 Definitions

Affiliate: A corporation, partnership, joint venture or other entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with another entity, or an agency, department, political subdivision, or any entity operating under the direct control of a Government Entity.

Applicant: The natural person or Legal Entity that applies for (or seeks renewal of) a Certificate. Once the Certificate is issued, the Applicant is referred to as the Subscriber. For Certificates issued to devices, the Applicant is the entity that controls or operates the device named in the Certificate, even if the device is sending the actual certificate request.

Applicant Representative: A natural person or human sponsor who is either the Applicant, employed by the Applicant, or an authorized agent who has express authority to represent the Applicant:

1. who signs and submits, or approves a certificate request on behalf of the Applicant, and/or
2. who signs and submits a Subscriber Agreement on behalf of the Applicant, and/or
3. who acknowledges the Terms of Use on behalf of the Applicant when the Applicant is an Affiliate of the CA or is the CA.

Application Software Supplier: A supplier of Internet browser software or other relying-party application software that displays or uses Certificates and incorporates Root Certificates.

Attestation Letter: A letter attesting that Subject Information is correct written by an accountant, lawyer, government official, or other reliable third party customarily relied upon for such information.

Audit Period: In a period-of-time audit, the period between the first day (start) and the last day of operations (end) covered by the auditors in their engagement. (This is not the same as the period of time when the auditors are on-site at the CA.) The coverage rules and maximum length of audit periods are defined in Section 8.1.

Audit Report: A report from a Qualified Auditor stating the Qualified Auditor’s opinion on whether an entity’s processes and controls comply with the mandatory provisions of these Requirements.

Authorization Domain Name: The FQDN used to obtain authorization for a given FQDN to be included in a Certificate. The CA may use the FQDN returned from a DNS CNAME lookup as the FQDN for the purposes of domain validation. If a Wildcard Domain Name is to be included in a Certificate, then the CA MUST remove “*.” from the left-most portion of the Wildcard Domain Name to yield the corresponding FQDN. The CA may prune zero or more Domain Labels of the FQDN from left to right until encountering a Base Domain Name and may use any one of the values that were yielded by pruning (including the Base Domain Name itself) for the purpose of domain validation.

Authorized Ports: One of the following ports: 80 (http), 443 (https), 25 (smtp), 22 (ssh).

Base Domain Name: The portion of an applied-for FQDN that is the first Domain Name node left of a registry-controlled or public suffix plus the registry-controlled or public suffix (e.g. “example.co.uk” or “example.com”). For FQDNs where the right-most Domain Name node is a gTLD having ICANN Specification 13 in its registry agreement, the gTLD itself may be used as the Base Domain Name.

CAA: From RFC 8659 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8659): “The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS Resource Record allows a DNS domain name holder to specify one or more Certification Authorities (CAs) authorized to issue certificates for that domain name. CAA Resource Records allow a public CA to implement additional controls to reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-issue.”

CA Key Pair: A Key Pair where the Public Key appears as the Subject Public Key Info in one or more Root CA Certificate(s) and/or Subordinate CA Certificate(s).

Certificate: An electronic document that uses a digital signature to bind a public key and an identity.

Certificate Data: Certificate requests and data related thereto (whether obtained from the Applicant or otherwise) in the CA’s possession or control or to which the CA has access.

Certificate Management Process: Processes, practices, and procedures associated with the use of keys, software, and hardware, by which the CA verifies Certificate Data, issues Certificates, maintains a Repository, and revokes Certificates.

Certificate Policy: A set of rules that indicates the applicability of a named Certificate to a particular community and/or PKI implementation with common security requirements.

Certificate Problem Report: Complaint of suspected Key Compromise, Certificate misuse, or other types of fraud, compromise, misuse, or inappropriate conduct related to Certificates.

Certificate Profile: A set of documents or files that defines requirements for Certificate content and Certificate extensions in accordance with Section 7, e.g. a Section in a CA’s CPS or a certificate template file used by CA software.

Certificate Revocation List: A regularly updated time-stamped list of revoked Certificates that is created and digitally signed by the CA that issued the Certificates.

Certification Authority: An organization that is responsible for the creation, issuance, revocation, and management of Certificates. The term applies equally to both Root CAs and Subordinate CAs.

Certification Practice Statement: One of several documents forming the governance framework in which Certificates are created, issued, managed, and used.

Control: “Control” (and its correlative meanings, “controlled by” and “under common control with”) means possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to: (1) direct the management, personnel, finances, or plans of such entity; (2) control the election of a majority of the directors ; or (3) vote that portion of voting shares required for “control” under the law of the entity’s Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Registration but in no case less than 10%.

Country: Either a member of the United Nations OR a geographic region recognized as a Sovereign State by at least two UN member nations.

Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate: A certificate that is used to establish a trust relationship between two CAs.

CSPRNG: A random number generator intended for use in a cryptographic system.

Delegated Third Party: A natural person or Legal Entity that is not the CA but is authorized by the CA, and whose activities are not within the scope of the appropriate CA audits, to assist in the Certificate Management Process by performing or fulfilling one or more of the CA requirements found herein.

DNS CAA Email Contact: The email address defined in Appendix A.1.1.

DNS CAA Phone Contact: The phone number defined in Appendix A.1.2.

DNS TXT Record Email Contact: The email address defined in Appendix A.2.1.

DNS TXT Record Phone Contact: The phone number defined in Appendix A.2.2.

Domain Contact: The Domain Name Registrant, technical contact, or administrative contact (or the equivalent under a ccTLD) as listed in the WHOIS record of the Base Domain Name or in a DNS SOA record, or as obtained through direct contact with the Domain Name Registrar.

Domain Label: From RFC 8499 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8499): “An ordered list of zero or more octets that makes up a portion of a domain name. Using graph theory, a label identifies one node in a portion of the graph of all possible domain names.”

Domain Name: An ordered list of one or more Domain Labels assigned to a node in the Domain Name System.

Domain Namespace: The set of all possible Domain Names that are subordinate to a single node in the Domain Name System.

Domain Name Registrant: Sometimes referred to as the “owner” of a Domain Name, but more properly the person(s) or entity(ies) registered with a Domain Name Registrar as having the right to control how a Domain Name is used, such as the natural person or Legal Entity that is listed as the “Registrant” by WHOIS or the Domain Name Registrar.

Domain Name Registrar: A person or entity that registers Domain Names under the auspices of or by agreement with:

1. the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN),
2. a national Domain Name authority/registry, or
3. a Network Information Center (including their affiliates, contractors, delegates, successors, or assignees).

Enterprise RA: An employee or agent of an organization unaffiliated with the CA who authorizes issuance of Certificates to that organization.

Expiry Date: The “Not After” date in a Certificate that defines the end of a Certificate’s validity period.

Fully-Qualified Domain Name: A Domain Name that includes the Domain Labels of all superior nodes in the Internet Domain Name System.

Government Entity: A government-operated legal entity, agency, department, ministry, branch, or similar element of the government of a country, or political subdivision within such country (such as a state, province, city, county, etc.).

High Risk Certificate Request: A Request that the CA flags for additional scrutiny by reference to internal criteria and databases maintained by the CA, which may include names at higher risk for phishing or other fraudulent usage, names contained in previously rejected certificate requests or revoked Certificates, names listed on the Miller Smiles phishing list or the Google Safe Browsing list, or names that the CA identifies using its own risk-mitigation criteria.

Internal Name: A string of characters (not an IP address) in a Common Name or Subject Alternative Name field of a Certificate that cannot be verified as globally unique within the public DNS at the time of certificate issuance because it does not end with a Top Level Domain registered in IANA’s Root Zone Database.

IP Address: A 32-bit or 128-bit number assigned to a device that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.

IP Address Contact: The person(s) or entity(ies) registered with an IP Address Registration Authority as having the right to control how one or more IP Addresses are used.

IP Address Registration Authority: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) or a Regional Internet Registry (RIPE, APNIC, ARIN, AfriNIC, LACNIC).

Issuing CA: In relation to a particular Certificate, the CA that issued the Certificate. This could be either a Root CA or a Subordinate CA.

Key Compromise: A Private Key is said to be compromised if its value has been disclosed to an unauthorized person, or an unauthorized person has had access to it.

Key Generation Script: A documented plan of procedures for the generation of a CA Key Pair.

Key Pair: The Private Key and its associated Public Key.

LDH Label: From RFC 5890 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5890): “A string consisting of ASCII letters, digits, and the hyphen with the further restriction that the hyphen cannot appear at the beginning or end of the string. Like all DNS labels, its total length must not exceed 63 octets.”

Legal Entity: An association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, government entity or other entity with legal standing in a country’s legal system.

Linting: A process in which the content of digitally signed data such as a Precertificate [RFC 6962], Certificate, Certificate Revocation List, or OCSP response, or data-to-be-signed object such as a tbsCertificate (as described in RFC 5280, Section 4.1.1.1) is checked for conformance with the profiles and requirements defined in these Requirements.

Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration: A process by which the determinations made during domain validation and CAA checking by the Primary Network Perspective are corroborated by other Network Perspectives before Certificate issuance.

Network Perspective: Related to Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration. A system (e.g., a cloud-hosted server instance) or collection of network components (e.g., a VPN and corresponding infrastructure) for sending outbound Internet traffic associated with a domain control validation method and/or CAA check. The location of a Network Perspective is determined by the point where unencapsulated outbound Internet traffic is typically first handed off to the network infrastructure providing Internet connectivity to that perspective.

Non-Reserved LDH Label: From RFC 5890 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5890): “The set of valid LDH labels that do not have ‘--’ in the third and fourth positions.”

Object Identifier: A unique alphanumeric or numeric identifier registered under the International Organization for Standardization’s applicable standard for a specific object or object class.

OCSP Responder: An online server operated under the authority of the CA and connected to its Repository for processing Certificate status requests. See also, Online Certificate Status Protocol.

Onion Domain Name: A Fully Qualified Domain Name ending with the RFC 7686 “.onion” Special-Use Domain Name. For example, 2gzyxa5ihm7nsggfxnu52rck2vv4rvmdlkiu3zzui5du4xyclen53wid.onion is an Onion Domain Name, whereas torproject.org is not an Onion Domain Name.

Online Certificate Status Protocol: An online Certificate-checking protocol that enables relying-party application software to determine the status of an identified Certificate. See also OCSP Responder.

Parent Company: A company that Controls a Subsidiary Company.

Pending Prohibition​​: The use of a behavior described with this label is highly discouraged, as it is planned to be deprecated and will likely be designated as MUST NOT in the future.

Primary Network Perspective: The Network Perspective used by the CA to make the determination of 1) the CA’s authority to issue a Certificate for the requested domain(s) or IP address(es) and 2) the Applicant’s authority and/or domain authorization or control of the requested domain(s) or IP address(es).

Private Key: The key of a Key Pair that is kept secret by the holder of the Key Pair, and that is used to create Digital Signatures and/or to decrypt electronic records or files that were encrypted with the corresponding Public Key.

Public Key: The key of a Key Pair that may be publicly disclosed by the holder of the corresponding Private Key and that is used by a Relying Party to verify Digital Signatures created with the holder’s corresponding Private Key and/or to encrypt messages so that they can be decrypted only with the holder’s corresponding Private Key.

Public Key Infrastructure: A set of hardware, software, people, procedures, rules, policies, and obligations used to facilitate the trustworthy creation, issuance, management, and use of Certificates and keys based on Public Key Cryptography.

Publicly-Trusted Certificate: A Certificate that is trusted by virtue of the fact that its corresponding Root Certificate is distributed as a trust anchor in widely-available application software.

P-Label: A XN-Label that contains valid output of the Punycode algorithm (as defined in RFC 3492, Section 6.3) from the fifth and subsequent positions.

Qualified Auditor: A natural person or Legal Entity that meets the requirements of Section 8.2.

Random Value: A value specified by a CA to the Applicant that exhibits at least 112 bits of entropy.

Registered Domain Name: A Domain Name that has been registered with a Domain Name Registrar.

Registration Authority (RA): Any Legal Entity that is responsible for identification and authentication of subjects of Certificates, but is not a CA, and hence does not sign or issue Certificates. An RA may assist in the certificate application process or revocation process or both. When “RA” is used as an adjective to describe a role or function, it does not necessarily imply a separate body, but can be part of the CA.

Reliable Data Source: An identification document or source of data used to verify Subject Identity Information that is generally recognized among commercial enterprises and governments as reliable, and which was created by a third party for a purpose other than the Applicant obtaining a Certificate.

Reliable Method of Communication: A method of communication, such as a postal/courier delivery address, telephone number, or email address, that was verified using a source other than the Applicant Representative.

Relying Party: Any natural person or Legal Entity that relies on a Valid Certificate. An Application Software Supplier is not considered a Relying Party when software distributed by such Supplier merely displays information relating to a Certificate.

Repository: An online database containing publicly-disclosed PKI governance documents (such as Certificate Policies and Certification Practice Statements) and Certificate status information, either in the form of a CRL or an OCSP response.

Request Token: A value, derived in a method specified by the CA which binds this demonstration of control to the certificate request. The CA SHOULD define within its CPS (or a document clearly referenced by the CPS) the format and method of Request Tokens it accepts.

The Request Token SHALL incorporate the key used in the certificate request.

A Request Token MAY include a timestamp to indicate when it was created.

A Request Token MAY include other information to ensure its uniqueness.

A Request Token that includes a timestamp SHALL remain valid for no more than 30 days from the time of creation.

A Request Token that includes a timestamp SHALL be treated as invalid if its timestamp is in the future.

A Request Token that does not include a timestamp is valid for a single use and the CA SHALL NOT re-use it for a subsequent validation.

The binding SHALL use a digital signature algorithm or a cryptographic hash algorithm at least as strong as that to be used in signing the certificate request.

Note: Examples of Request Tokens include, but are not limited to:

1. a hash of the public key; or
2. a hash of the Subject Public Key Info [X.509]; or
3. a hash of a PKCS#10 CSR.

A Request Token may also be concatenated with a timestamp or other data. If a CA wanted to always use a hash of a PKCS#10 CSR as a Request Token and did not want to incorporate a timestamp and did want to allow certificate key re-use then the applicant might use the challenge password in the creation of a CSR with OpenSSL to ensure uniqueness even if the subject and key are identical between subsequent requests.

Note: This simplistic shell command produces a Request Token which has a timestamp and a hash of a CSR. echo `date -u +%Y%m%d%H%M` `sha256sum <r2.csr` \| sed "s/[ -]//g" The script outputs: 201602251811c9c863405fe7675a3988b97664ea6baf442019e4e52fa335f406f7c5f26cf14f

Required Website Content: Either a Random Value or a Request Token, together with additional information that uniquely identifies the Subscriber, as specified by the CA.

Requirements: The Baseline Requirements found in this document.

Reserved IP Address: An IPv4 or IPv6 address that is contained in the address block of any entry in either of the following IANA registries:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml

https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml

Root CA: The top level Certification Authority whose Root Certificate is distributed by Application Software Suppliers and that issues Subordinate CA Certificates.

Root Certificate: The self-signed Certificate issued by the Root CA to identify itself and to facilitate verification of Certificates issued to its Subordinate CAs.

Short-lived Subscriber Certificate: For Certificates issued on or after 15 March 2024 and prior to 15 March 2026, a Subscriber Certificate with a Validity Period less than or equal to 10 days (864,000 seconds). For Certificates issued on or after 15 March 2026, a Subscriber Certificate with a Validity Period less than or equal to 7 days (604,800 seconds).

Sovereign State: A state or country that administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.

Subject: The natural person, device, system, unit, or Legal Entity identified in a Certificate as the Subject. The Subject is either the Subscriber or a device under the control and operation of the Subscriber.

Subject Identity Information: Information that identifies the Certificate Subject. Subject Identity Information does not include a Domain Name listed in the subjectAltName extension or the Subject commonName field.

Subordinate CA: A Certification Authority whose Certificate is signed by the Root CA, or another Subordinate CA.

Subscriber: A natural person or Legal Entity to whom a Certificate is issued and who is legally bound by a Subscriber Agreement or Terms of Use.

Subscriber Agreement: An agreement between the CA and the Applicant/Subscriber that specifies the rights and responsibilities of the parties.

Subsidiary Company: A company that is controlled by a Parent Company.

Technically Constrained Subordinate CA Certificate: A Subordinate CA certificate which uses a combination of Extended Key Usage and/or Name Constraint extensions, as defined within the relevant Certificate Profiles of this document, to limit the scope within which the Subordinate CA Certificate may issue Subscriber or additional Subordinate CA Certificates.

Terms of Use: Provisions regarding the safekeeping and acceptable uses of a Certificate issued in accordance with these Requirements when the Applicant/Subscriber is an Affiliate of the CA or is the CA.

Test Certificate: This term is no longer used in these Baseline Requirements.

Trustworthy System: Computer hardware, software, and procedures that are: reasonably secure from intrusion and misuse; provide a reasonable level of availability, reliability, and correct operation; are reasonably suited to performing their intended functions; and enforce the applicable security policy.

Unregistered Domain Name: A Domain Name that is not a Registered Domain Name.

Valid Certificate: A Certificate that passes the validation procedure specified in RFC 5280.

Validation Specialist: Someone who performs the information verification duties specified by these Requirements.

Validity Period: From RFC 5280 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280): “The period of time from notBefore through notAfter, inclusive.”

WHOIS: Information retrieved directly from the Domain Name Registrar or registry operator via the protocol defined in RFC 3912, the Registry Data Access Protocol defined in RFC 7482, or an HTTPS website.

Wildcard Certificate: A Certificate containing at least one Wildcard Domain Name in the Subject Alternative Names in the Certificate.

Wildcard Domain Name: A string starting with “*.” (U+002A ASTERISK, U+002E FULL STOP) immediately followed by a Fully-Qualified Domain Name.

XN-Label: From RFC 5890 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5890): “The class of labels that begin with the prefix "xn--" (case independent), but otherwise conform to the rules for LDH labels.”

1.6.2 Acronyms

1.6.3 References

ETSI EN 319 403, Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Trust Service Provider Conformity Assessment - Requirements for conformity assessment bodies assessing Trust Service Providers

ETSI EN 319 411-1, Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Policy and security requirements for Trust Service Providers issuing certificates; Part 1: General requirements

ETSI TS 102 042, Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Policy requirements for certification authorities issuing public key certificates.

FIPS 140-2, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication - Security Requirements For Cryptographic Modules, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, May 25, 2001.

FIPS 140-3, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication - Security Requirements For Cryptographic Modules, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, March 22, 2019.

FIPS 186-4, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication - Digital Signature Standard (DSS), Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, July 2013.

ISO 21188:2006, Public key infrastructure for financial services – Practices and policy framework.

Network and Certificate System Security Requirements, Version 1.7, available at https://cabforum.org/network-security-requirements/

NIST SP 800-89, Recommendation for Obtaining Assurances for Digital Signature Applications, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-89.pdf.

RFC2119, Request for Comments: 2119, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. S. Bradner. March 1997.

RFC3492, Request for Comments: 3492, Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA). A. Costello. March 2003.

RFC3647, Request for Comments: 3647, Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework. S. Chokhani, et al. November 2003.

RFC3912, Request for Comments: 3912, WHOIS Protocol Specification. L. Daigle. September 2004.

RFC3986, Request for Comments: 3986, Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax. T. Berners-Lee, et al. January 2005.

RFC5019, Request for Comments: 5019, The Lightweight Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Profile for High-Volume Environments. A. Deacon, et al. September 2007.

RFC5280, Request for Comments: 5280, Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile. D. Cooper, et al. May 2008.

RFC5890, Request for Comments: 5890, Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework. J. Klensin. August 2010.

RFC5952, Request for Comments: 5952, A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation. S. Kawamura, et al. August 2010.

RFC6960, Request for Comments: 6960, X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP. S. Santesson, et al. June 2013.

RFC6962, Request for Comments: 6962, Certificate Transparency. B. Laurie, et al. June 2013.

RFC7231, Request For Comments: 7231, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content. R. Fielding, et al. June 2014.

RFC7482, Request for Comments: 7482, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format. A. Newton, et al. March 2015.

RFC7538, Request For Comments: 7538, The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect). J. Reschke. April 2015.

RFC8499, Request for Comments: 8499, DNS Terminology. P. Hoffman, et al. January 2019.

RFC8659, Request for Comments: 8659, DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record. P. Hallam-Baker, et al. November 2019.

RFC8738, Request for Comments: 8738, Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) IP Identifier Validation Extension. R.B.Shoemaker, Ed. February 2020.

RFC8954, Request for Comments: 8954, Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Nonce Extension. M. Sahni, Ed. November 2020.

WebTrust for Certification Authorities, SSL Baseline with Network Security, available at https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/business-and-accounting-resources/audit-and-assurance/overview-of-webtrust-services/principles-and-criteria

WebTrust Principles and Criteria for Certification Authorities – SSL Baseline

X.509, Recommendation ITU-T X.509 (08/2005) | ISO/IEC 9594-8:2005, Information technology – Open Systems Interconnection – The Directory: Public-key and attribute certificate frameworks.

1.6.4 Conventions

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in these Requirements shall be interpreted in accordance with RFC 2119.

By convention, this document omits time and timezones when listing effective requirements such as dates. Except when explicitly specified, the associated time with a date shall be 00:00:00 UTC.

2. PUBLICATION AND REPOSITORY RESPONSIBILITIES

The CA SHALL develop, implement, enforce, and annually update a Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement that describes in detail how the CA implements the latest version of these Requirements.

2.1 Repositories

The CA SHALL make revocation information for Subordinate Certificates and Subscriber Certificates available in accordance with this Policy.

2.2 Publication of information

The CA SHALL publicly disclose its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement through an appropriate and readily accessible online means that is available on a 24x7 basis. The CA SHALL publicly disclose its CA business practices to the extent required by the CA’s selected audit scheme (see Section 8.4).

The Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement MUST be structured in accordance with RFC 3647 and MUST include all material required by RFC 3647.

The CA SHALL publicly give effect to these Requirements and represent that it will adhere to the latest published version. The CA MAY fulfill this requirement by incorporating these Requirements directly into its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statements or by incorporating them by reference using a clause such as the following (which MUST include a link to the official version of these Requirements):

[Name of CA] conforms to the current version of the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted TLS Server Certificates published at http://www.cabforum.org. In the event of any inconsistency between this document and those Requirements, those Requirements take precedence over this document.

The CA SHALL host test Web pages that allow Application Software Suppliers to test their software with Subscriber Certificates that chain up to each publicly trusted Root Certificate. At a minimum, the CA SHALL host separate Web pages using Subscriber Certificates that are

1. valid,
2. revoked, and
3. expired.

2.3 Time or frequency of publication

The CA SHALL develop, implement, enforce, and annually update a Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement that describes in detail how the CA implements the latest version of these Requirements. The CA SHALL indicate conformance with this requirement by incrementing the version number and adding a dated changelog entry, even if no other changes are made to the document.

2.4 Access controls on repositories

The CA shall make its Repository publicly available in a read-only manner.

3. IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION

3.1 Naming

3.1.1 Types of names

3.1.2 Need for names to be meaningful

3.1.3 Anonymity or pseudonymity of subscribers

3.1.4 Rules for interpreting various name forms

3.1.5 Uniqueness of names

3.1.6 Recognition, authentication, and role of trademarks

3.2 Initial identity validation

3.2.1 Method to prove possession of private key

3.2.2 Authentication of Organization and Domain Identity

If the Applicant requests a Certificate that will contain Subject Identity Information comprised only of the countryName field, then the CA SHALL verify the country associated with the Subject using a verification process meeting the requirements of Section 3.2.2.3 and that is described in the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement. If the Applicant requests a Certificate that will contain the countryName field and other Subject Identity Information, then the CA SHALL verify the identity of the Applicant, and the authenticity of the Applicant Representative’s certificate request using a verification process meeting the requirements of this Section 3.2.2.1 and that is described in the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement. The CA SHALL inspect any document relied upon under this Section for alteration or falsification.

3.2.2.1 Identity

If the Subject Identity Information is to include the name or address of an organization, the CA SHALL verify the identity and address of the organization and that the address is the Applicant’s address of existence or operation. The CA SHALL verify the identity and address of the Applicant using documentation provided by, or through communication with, at least one of the following:

1. A government agency in the jurisdiction of the Applicant’s legal creation, existence, or recognition;
2. A third party database that is periodically updated and considered a Reliable Data Source;
3. A site visit by the CA or a third party who is acting as an agent for the CA; or
4. An Attestation Letter.

The CA MAY use the same documentation or communication described in 1 through 4 above to verify both the Applicant’s identity and address.

Alternatively, the CA MAY verify the address of the Applicant (but not the identity of the Applicant) using a utility bill, bank statement, credit card statement, government-issued tax document, or other form of identification that the CA determines to be reliable.

3.2.2.2 DBA/Tradename

If the Subject Identity Information is to include a DBA or tradename, the CA SHALL verify the Applicant’s right to use the DBA/tradename using at least one of the following:

1. Documentation provided by, or communication with, a government agency in the jurisdiction of the Applicant’s legal creation, existence, or recognition;
2. A Reliable Data Source;
3. Communication with a government agency responsible for the management of such DBAs or trade names;
4. An Attestation Letter accompanied by documentary support; or
5. A utility bill, bank statement, credit card statement, government-issued tax document, or other form of identification that the CA determines to be reliable.

3.2.2.3 Verification of Country

If the subject:countryName field is present, then the CA SHALL verify the country associated with the Subject using one of the following:

1. the IP Address range assignment by country for either
   1. the web site’s IP address, as indicated by the DNS record for the web site or
   2. the Applicant’s IP address;
2. the ccTLD of the requested Domain Name;
3. information provided by the Domain Name Registrar; or
4. a method identified in Section 3.2.2.1.

The CA SHOULD implement a process to screen proxy servers in order to prevent reliance upon IP addresses assigned in countries other than where the Applicant is actually located.

3.2.2.4 Validation of Domain Authorization or Control

This section defines the permitted processes and procedures for validating the Applicant’s ownership or control of the domain.

The CA SHALL confirm that prior to issuance, the CA has validated each Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) listed in the Certificate as follows:

1. When the FQDN is not an Onion Domain Name, the CA SHALL validate the FQDN using at least one of the methods listed below; and
2. When the FQDN is an Onion Domain Name, the CA SHALL validate the FQDN in accordance with Appendix B.

Completed validations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple Certificates over time. In all cases, the validation must have been initiated within the time period specified in the relevant requirement (such as Section 4.2.1 of this document) prior to Certificate issuance. For purposes of domain validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.

CAs SHALL maintain a record of which domain validation method, including relevant BR version number, they used to validate every domain.

Note: FQDNs may be listed in Subscriber Certificates using dNSNames in the subjectAltName extension or in Subordinate CA Certificates via dNSNames in permittedSubtrees within the Name Constraints extension.

3.2.2.4.1 Validating the Applicant as a Domain Contact

This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used. Prior validations using this method and validation data gathered according to this method SHALL NOT be used to issue certificates.

3.2.2.4.2 Email, Fax, SMS, or Postal Mail to Domain Contact

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by sending a Random Value via email, fax, SMS, or postal mail and then receiving a confirming response utilizing the Random Value. The Random Value MUST be sent to an email address, fax/SMS number, or postal mail address identified as a Domain Contact.

Each email, fax, SMS, or postal mail MAY confirm control of multiple Authorization Domain Names.

The CA MAY send the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail identified under this section to more than one recipient provided that every recipient is identified by the Domain Name Registrar as representing the Domain Name Registrant for every FQDN being verified using the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail.

The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email, fax, SMS, or postal mail.

The CA MAY resend the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail in its entirety, including re-use of the Random Value, provided that the communication’s entire contents and recipient(s) remain unchanged.

The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values, in which case the CA MUST follow its CPS.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.3 Phone Contact with Domain Contact

This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used. Prior validations using this method and validation data gathered according to this method SHALL NOT be used to issue certificates.

3.2.2.4.4 Constructed Email to Domain Contact

Confirm the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by

1. Sending an email to one or more addresses created by using ‘admin’, ‘administrator’, ‘webmaster’, ‘hostmaster’, or ‘postmaster’ as the local part, followed by the at-sign (“@”), followed by an Authorization Domain Name; and
2. including a Random Value in the email; and
3. receiving a confirming response utilizing the Random Value.

Each email MAY confirm control of multiple FQDNs, provided the Authorization Domain Name used in the email is an Authorization Domain Name for each FQDN being confirmed

The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email.

The email MAY be re-sent in its entirety, including the re-use of the Random Value, provided that its entire contents and recipient SHALL remain unchanged.

The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.5 Domain Authorization Document

This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used. Prior validations using this method and validation data gathered according to this method SHALL NOT be used to issue certificates.

3.2.2.4.6 Agreed-Upon Change to Website

This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used. Prior validations using this method and validation data gathered according to this method SHALL NOT be used to issue certificates.

3.2.2.4.7 DNS Change

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by confirming the presence of a Random Value or Request Token for either in a DNS CNAME, TXT or CAA record for either 1) an Authorization Domain Name; or 2) an Authorization Domain Name that is prefixed with a Domain Label that begins with an underscore character.

If a Random Value is used, the CA SHALL provide a Random Value unique to the Certificate request and SHALL not use the Random Value after

1. 30 days or
2. if the Applicant submitted the Certificate request, the time frame permitted for reuse of validated information relevant to the Certificate (such as in Section 4.2.1 of these Guidelines or Section 3.2.2.14.3 of the EV Guidelines).

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.8 IP Address

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by confirming that the Applicant controls an IP address returned from a DNS lookup for A or AAAA records for the FQDN in accordance with Section 3.2.2.5.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same IP address as the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MUST NOT issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels of the validated FQDN unless the CA performs a separate validation for that FQDN using an authorized method. This method is NOT suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.9 Test Certificate

This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used. Prior validations using this method and validation data gathered according to this method SHALL NOT be used to issue certificates.

3.2.2.4.10 TLS Using a Random Value

This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used. Prior validations using this method and validation data gathered according to this method SHALL NOT be used to issue certificates.

3.2.2.4.11 Any Other Method

This method has been retired and MUST NOT be used.

3.2.2.4.12 Validating Applicant as a Domain Contact

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by validating the Applicant is the Domain Contact. This method may only be used if the CA is also the Domain Name Registrar, or an Affiliate of the Registrar, of the Base Domain Name.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.13 Email to DNS CAA Contact

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by sending a Random Value via email and then receiving a confirming response utilizing the Random Value. The Random Value MUST be sent to a DNS CAA Email Contact. The relevant CAA Resource Record Set MUST be found using the search algorithm defined in RFC 8659, Section 3.

Each email MAY confirm control of multiple FQDNs, provided that each email address is a DNS CAA Email Contact for each Authorization Domain Name being validated. The same email MAY be sent to multiple recipients as long as all recipients are DNS CAA Email Contacts for each Authorization Domain Name being validated.

The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email. The email MAY be re-sent in its entirety, including the re-use of the Random Value, provided that its entire contents and recipient(s) SHALL remain unchanged. The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the selected contact address used for domain validation observed by the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.14 Email to DNS TXT Contact

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by sending a Random Value via email and then receiving a confirming response utilizing the Random Value. The Random Value MUST be sent to a DNS TXT Record Email Contact for the Authorization Domain Name selected to validate the FQDN.

Each email MAY confirm control of multiple FQDNs, provided that each email address is DNS TXT Record Email Contact for each Authorization Domain Name being validated. The same email MAY be sent to multiple recipients as long as all recipients are DNS TXT Record Email Contacts for each Authorization Domain Name being validated.

The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email. The email MAY be re-sent in its entirety, including the re-use of the Random Value, provided that its entire contents and recipient(s) SHALL remain unchanged. The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the selected contact address used for domain validation observed by the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.15 Phone Contact with Domain Contact

Confirm the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by calling the Domain Contact’s phone number and obtain a confirming response to validate the ADN. Each phone call MAY confirm control of multiple ADNs provided that the same Domain Contact phone number is listed for each ADN being verified and they provide a confirming response for each ADN.

In the event that someone other than a Domain Contact is reached, the CA MAY request to be transferred to the Domain Contact.

In the event of reaching voicemail, the CA may leave the Random Value and the ADN(s) being validated. The Random Value MUST be returned to the CA to approve the request.

The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.16 Phone Contact with DNS TXT Record Phone Contact

Confirm the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by calling the DNS TXT Record Phone Contact’s phone number and obtain a confirming response to validate the ADN. Each phone call MAY confirm control of multiple ADNs provided that the same DNS TXT Record Phone Contact phone number is listed for each ADN being verified and they provide a confirming response for each ADN.

The CA MUST NOT knowingly be transferred or request to be transferred as this phone number has been specifically listed for the purposes of Domain Validation.

In the event of reaching voicemail, the CA may leave the Random Value and the ADN(s) being validated. The Random Value MUST be returned to the CA to approve the request.

The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the selected contact address used for domain validation observed by the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.17 Phone Contact with DNS CAA Phone Contact

Confirm the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by calling the DNS CAA Phone Contact’s phone number and obtain a confirming response to validate the ADN. Each phone call MAY confirm control of multiple ADNs provided that the same DNS CAA Phone Contact phone number is listed for each ADN being verified and they provide a confirming response for each ADN. The relevant CAA Resource Record Set MUST be found using the search algorithm defined in RFC 8659 Section 3.

The CA MUST NOT be transferred or request to be transferred as this phone number has been specifically listed for the purposes of Domain Validation.

In the event of reaching voicemail, the CA may leave the Random Value and the ADN(s) being validated. The Random Value MUST be returned to the CA to approve the request.

The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the selected contact address used for domain validation observed by the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MAY also issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the Domain Labels of the validated FQDN. This method is suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.18 Agreed-Upon Change to Website v2

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the FQDN by verifying that the Request Token or Random Value is contained in the contents of a file.

1. The entire Request Token or Random Value MUST NOT appear in the request used to retrieve the file, and
2. the CA MUST receive a successful HTTP response from the request (meaning a 2xx HTTP status code must be received).

The file containing the Request Token or Random Value:

1. MUST be located on the Authorization Domain Name, and
2. MUST be located under the “/.well-known/pki-validation” directory, and
3. MUST be retrieved via either the “http” or “https” scheme, and
4. MUST be accessed over an Authorized Port.

If the CA follows redirects, the following apply:

1. Redirects MUST be initiated at the HTTP protocol layer.
   1. For validations performed on or after July 1, 2021, redirects MUST be the result of a 301, 302, or 307 HTTP status code response, as defined in RFC 7231, Section 6.4, or a 308 HTTP status code response, as defined in RFC 7538, Section 3. Redirects MUST be to the final value of the Location HTTP response header, as defined in RFC 7231, Section 7.1.2.
   2. For validations performed prior to July 1, 2021, redirects MUST be the result of an HTTP status code result within the 3xx Redirection class of status codes, as defined in RFC 7231, Section 6.4. CAs SHOULD limit the accepted status codes and resource URLs to those defined within 1.a.
2. Redirects MUST be to resource URLs with either the “http” or “https” scheme.
3. Redirects MUST be to resource URLs accessed via Authorized Ports.

If a Random Value is used, then:

1. The CA MUST provide a Random Value unique to the certificate request.
2. The Random Value MUST remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values, in which case the CA MUST follow its CPS.

Except for Onion Domain Names, CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: * The CA MUST NOT issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels of the validated FQDN unless the CA performs a separate validation for that FQDN using an authorized method. This method is NOT suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.19 Agreed-Upon Change to Website - ACME

Confirming the Applicant’s control over a FQDN by validating domain control of the FQDN using the ACME HTTP Challenge method defined in Section 8.3 of RFC 8555. The following are additive requirements to RFC 8555.

The CA MUST receive a successful HTTP response from the request (meaning a 2xx HTTP status code must be received).

The token (as defined in RFC 8555, Section 8.3) MUST NOT be used for more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values, in which case the CA MUST follow its CPS.

If the CA follows redirects, the following apply:

1. Redirects MUST be initiated at the HTTP protocol layer.
   1. For validations performed on or after July 1, 2021, redirects MUST be the result of a 301, 302, or 307 HTTP status code response, as defined in RFC 7231, Section 6.4, or a 308 HTTP status code response, as defined in RFC 7538, Section 3. Redirects MUST be to the final value of the Location HTTP response header, as defined in RFC 7231, Section 7.1.2.
   2. For validations performed prior to July 1, 2021, redirects MUST be the result of an HTTP status code result within the 3xx Redirection class of status codes, as defined in RFC 7231, Section 6.4. CAs SHOULD limit the accepted status codes and resource URLs to those defined within 1.a.
2. Redirects MUST be to resource URLs with either the “http” or “https” scheme.
3. Redirects MUST be to resource URLs accessed via Authorized Ports.

Except for Onion Domain Names, CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: * The CA MUST NOT issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels of the validated FQDN unless the CA performs a separate validation for that FQDN using an authorized method. This method is NOT suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.4.20 TLS Using ALPN

Confirming the Applicant’s control over a FQDN by validating domain control of the FQDN by negotiating a new application layer protocol using the TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Extension [RFC7301] as defined in RFC 8737. The following are additive requirements to RFC 8737.

The token (as defined in RFC 8737, Section 3) MUST NOT be used for more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for the token, in which case the CA MUST follow its CPS.

Except for Onion Domain Names, CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same token as the Primary Network Perspective.

Note: Once the FQDN has been validated using this method, the CA MUST NOT issue Certificates for other FQDNs that end with all the labels of the validated FQDN unless the CA performs a separate validation for that FQDN using an authorized method. This method is NOT suitable for validating Wildcard Domain Names.

3.2.2.5 Authentication for an IP Address

This section defines the permitted processes and procedures for validating the Applicant’s ownership or control of an IP Address listed in a Certificate.

The CA SHALL confirm that prior to issuance, the CA has validated each IP Address listed in the Certificate using at least one of the methods specified in this section.

Completed validations of Applicant authority may be valid for the issuance of multiple Certificates over time. In all cases, the validation must have been initiated within the time period specified in the relevant requirement (such as Section 4.2.1 of this document) prior to Certificate issuance. For purposes of IP Address validation, the term Applicant includes the Applicant’s Parent Company, Subsidiary Company, or Affiliate.

After July 31, 2019, CAs SHALL maintain a record of which IP validation method, including the relevant BR version number, was used to validate every IP Address.

3.2.2.5.1 Agreed-Upon Change to Website

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the requested IP Address by confirming the presence of a Request Token or Random Value contained in the content of a file or webpage in the form of a meta tag under the “/.well-known/pki-validation” directory, or another path registered with IANA for the purpose of validating control of IP Addresses, on the IP Address that is accessible by the CA via HTTP/HTTPS over an Authorized Port. The Request Token or Random Value MUST NOT appear in the request.

If a Random Value is used, the CA SHALL provide a Random Value unique to the certificate request and SHALL not use the Random Value after the longer of

1. 30 days or
2. if the Applicant submitted the certificate request, the time frame permitted for reuse of validated information relevant to the certificate (such as in Section 4.2.1 of this document).

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same challenge information (i.e. Random Value or Request Token) as the Primary Network Perspective.

3.2.2.5.2 Email, Fax, SMS, or Postal Mail to IP Address Contact

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by sending a Random Value via email, fax, SMS, or postal mail and then receiving a confirming response utilizing the Random Value. The Random Value MUST be sent to an email address, fax/SMS number, or postal mail address identified as an IP Address Contact.

Each email, fax, SMS, or postal mail MAY confirm control of multiple IP Addresses.

The CA MAY send the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail identified under this section to more than one recipient provided that every recipient is identified by the IP Address Registration Authority as representing the IP Address Contact for every IP Address being verified using the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail.

The Random Value SHALL be unique in each email, fax, SMS, or postal mail.

The CA MAY resend the email, fax, SMS, or postal mail in its entirety, including re-use of the Random Value, provided that the communication’s entire contents and recipient(s) remain unchanged.

The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values, in which case the CA MUST follow its CPS.

3.2.2.5.3 Reverse Address Lookup

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by obtaining a Domain Name associated with the IP Address through a reverse-IP lookup on the IP Address and then verifying control over the FQDN using a method permitted under Section 3.2.2.4.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same FQDN as the Primary Network Perspective.

3.2.2.5.4 Any Other Method

Using any other method of confirmation, including variations of the methods defined in Section 3.2.2.5, provided that the CA maintains documented evidence that the method of confirmation establishes that the Applicant has control over the IP Address to at least the same level of assurance as the methods previously described in version 1.6.2 of these Requirements.

CAs SHALL NOT perform validations using this method after July 31, 2019. Completed validations using this method SHALL NOT be re-used for certificate issuance after July 31, 2019. Any certificate issued prior to August 1, 2019 containing an IP Address that was validated using any method that was permitted under the prior version of this Section 3.2.2.5 MAY continue to be used without revalidation until such certificate naturally expires.

3.2.2.5.5 Phone Contact with IP Address Contact

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by calling the IP Address Contact’s phone number and obtaining a response confirming the Applicant’s request for validation of the IP Address. The CA MUST place the call to a phone number identified by the IP Address Registration Authority as the IP Address Contact. Each phone call SHALL be made to a single number.

In the event that someone other than an IP Address Contact is reached, the CA MAY request to be transferred to the IP Address Contact.

In the event of reaching voicemail, the CA may leave the Random Value and the IP Address(es) being validated. The Random Value MUST be returned to the CA to approve the request.

The Random Value SHALL remain valid for use in a confirming response for no more than 30 days from its creation. The CPS MAY specify a shorter validity period for Random Values.

3.2.2.5.6 ACME “http-01” method for IP Addresses

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by performing the procedure documented for an “http-01” challenge in RFC 8738.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same token as the Primary Network Perspective.

3.2.2.5.7 ACME “tls-alpn-01” method for IP Addresses

Confirming the Applicant’s control over the IP Address by performing the procedure documented for a “tls-alpn-01” challenge in RFC 8738.

CAs using this method MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration as specified in Section 3.2.2.9. To count as corroborating, a Network Perspective MUST observe the same token as the Primary Network Perspective.

3.2.2.6 Wildcard Domain Validation

Before issuing a Wildcard Certificate, the CA MUST establish and follow a documented procedure that determines if the FQDN portion of any Wildcard Domain Name in the Certificate is “registry-controlled” or is a “public suffix” (e.g. “*.com”, “*.co.uk”, see RFC 6454 Section 8.2 for further explanation).

If the FQDN portion of any Wildcard Domain Name is “registry-controlled” or is a “public suffix”, CAs MUST refuse issuance unless the Applicant proves its rightful control of the entire Domain Namespace. (e.g. CAs MUST NOT issue “*.co.uk” or “*.local”, but MAY issue “*.example.com” to Example Co.).

Determination of what is “registry-controlled” versus the registerable portion of a Country Code Top-Level Domain Namespace is not standardized at the time of writing and is not a property of the DNS itself. Current best practice is to consult a “public suffix list” such as the Public Suffix List (PSL), and to retrieve a fresh copy regularly.

If using the PSL, a CA SHOULD consult the “ICANN DOMAINS” section only, not the “PRIVATE DOMAINS” section. The PSL is updated regularly to contain new gTLDs delegated by ICANN, which are listed in the “ICANN DOMAINS” section. A CA is not prohibited from issuing a Wildcard Certificate to the Registrant of an entire gTLD, provided that control of the entire namespace is demonstrated in an appropriate way.

3.2.2.7 Data Source Accuracy

Prior to using any data source as a Reliable Data Source, the CA SHALL evaluate the source for its reliability, accuracy, and resistance to alteration or falsification. The CA SHOULD consider the following during its evaluation:

1. The age of the information provided,
2. The frequency of updates to the information source,
3. The data provider and purpose of the data collection,
4. The public accessibility of the data availability, and
5. The relative difficulty in falsifying or altering the data.

Databases maintained by the CA, its owner, or its affiliated companies do not qualify as a Reliable Data Source if the primary purpose of the database is to collect information for the purpose of fulfilling the validation requirements under this Section 3.2.

3.2.2.8 CAA Records

As part of the Certificate issuance process, the CA MUST retrieve and process CAA records in accordance with RFC 8659 for each dNSName in the subjectAltName extension that does not contain an Onion Domain Name. These practices MUST be described in Section 4.2 of the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement, including specifying the set of Issuer Domain Names that the CA recognizes in CAA “issue” or “issuewild” records as permitting it to issue.

Some methods relied upon for validating the Applicant’s ownership or control of the subject domain(s) (see Section 3.2.2.4) or IP address(es) (see Section 3.2.2.5) to be listed in a certificate require CAA records to be retrieved and processed from additional remote Network Perspectives before Certificate issuance (see Section 3.2.2.9). To corroborate the Primary Network Perspective, a remote Network Perspective’s CAA check response MUST be interpreted as permission to issue, regardless of whether the responses from both Perspectives are byte-for-byte identical. Additionally, a CA MAY consider the response from a remote Network Perspective as corroborating if one or both of the Perspectives experience an acceptable CAA record lookup failure, as defined in this section.

CAs MAY check CAA records at any other time.

When processing CAA records, CAs MUST process the issue, issuewild, and iodef property tags as specified in RFC 8659, although they are not required to act on the contents of the iodef property tag. Additional property tags MAY be supported, but MUST NOT conflict with or supersede the mandatory property tags set out in this document. CAs MUST respect the critical flag and not issue a certificate if they encounter an unrecognized property tag with this flag set.

If the CA issues a certificate after processing a CAA record, it MUST do so within the TTL of the CAA record, or 8 hours, whichever is greater.

RFC 8659 requires that CAs “MUST NOT issue a certificate unless the CA determines that either (1) the certificate request is consistent with the applicable CAA RRset or (2) an exception specified in the relevant CP or CPS applies.” For issuances conforming to these Baseline Requirements, CAs MUST NOT rely on any exceptions specified in their CP or CPS unless they are one of the following:

• CAA checking is optional for certificates for which a Certificate Transparency Precertificate (see Section 7.1.2.9) was created and logged in at least two public logs, and for which CAA was checked at time of Precertificate issuance.
• CAA checking is optional for certificates issued by a Technically Constrained Subordinate CA Certificate as set out in Section 7.1.2.3 or Section 7.1.2.5, where the lack of CAA checking is an explicit contractual provision in the contract with the Applicant.

CAs are permitted to treat a record lookup failure as permission to issue if:

• the failure is outside the CA’s infrastructure; and
• the lookup has been retried at least once; and
• the domain’s zone does not have a DNSSEC validation chain to the ICANN root.

CAs MUST document potential issuances that were prevented by a CAA record in sufficient detail to provide feedback to the CA/Browser Forum on the circumstances, and SHOULD dispatch reports of such issuance requests to the contact(s) stipulated in the CAA iodef record(s), if present. CAs are not expected to support URL schemes in the iodef record other than mailto: or https:.

3.2.2.9 Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration

Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration attempts to corroborate the determinations (i.e., domain validation pass/fail, CAA permission/prohibition) made by the Primary Network Perspective from multiple remote Network Perspectives before Certificate issuance. This process can improve protection against equally-specific prefix Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) attacks or hijacks.

The CA MAY use either the same set, or different sets of Network Perspectives when performing Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration for the required 1) Domain Authorization or Control and 2) CAA Record checks.

The set of responses from the relied upon Network Perspectives MUST provide the CA with the necessary information to allow it to affirmatively assess: - a. the presence of the expected 1) Random Value, 2) Request Token, 3) IP Address, or 4) Contact Address, as required by the relied upon validation method specified in Sections 3.2.2.4 and 3.2.2.5; and - b. the CA’s authority to issue to the requested domain(s), as specified in Section 3.2.2.8.

Section 3.2.2.4 and Section 3.2.2.5 describe the validation methods that require the use of Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration and how a Network Perspective can corroborate the outcomes determined by the Primary Network Perspective.

Results or information obtained from one Network Perspective MUST NOT be reused or cached when performing validation through subsequent Network Perspectives (e.g., different Network Perspectives cannot rely on a shared DNS cache to prevent an adversary with control of traffic from one Network Perspective from poisoning the DNS cache used by other Network Perspectives). The network infrastructure providing Internet connectivity to a Network Perspective MAY be administered by the same organization providing the computational services required to operate the Network Perspective. All communications between a remote Network Perspective and the CA MUST take place over an authenticated and encrypted channel relying on modern protocols (e.g., over HTTPS).

A Network Perspective MAY use a recursive DNS resolver that is NOT co-located with the Network Perspective. However, the DNS resolver used by the Network Perspective MUST fall within the same Regional Internet Registry service region as the Network Perspective relying upon it. Furthermore, for any pair of DNS resolvers used on a Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration attempt, the straight-line distance between the two States, Provinces, or Countries the DNS resolvers reside in MUST be at least 500 km. The location of a DNS resolver is determined by the point where unencapsulated outbound DNS queries are typically first handed off to the network infrastructure providing Internet connectivity to that DNS resolver.

CAs MAY immediately retry Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration using the same validation method or an alternative method (e.g., a CA can immediately retry validation using “Email to DNS TXT Contact” if “Agreed-Upon Change to Website - ACME” does not corroborate the outcome of Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration). When retrying Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration, CAs MUST NOT rely on corroborations from previous attempts. There is no stipulation regarding the maximum number of validation attempts that may be performed in any period of time.

The “Quorum Requirements” Table describes quorum requirements related to Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration. If the CA does NOT rely on the same set of Network Perspectives for both Domain Authorization or Control and CAA Record checks, the quorum requirements MUST be met for both sets of Network Perspectives (i.e.,the Domain Authorization or Control set and the CAA record check set). Network Perspectives are considered distinct when the straight-line distance between the two States, Provinces, or Countries they reside in is at least 500 km. Network Perspectives are considered “remote” when they are distinct from the Primary Network Perspective and the other Network Perspectives represented in a quorum.

A CA MAY reuse corroborating evidence for CAA record quorum compliance for a maximum of 398 days. After issuing a Certificate to a domain, remote Network Perspectives MAY omit retrieving and processing CAA records for the same domain or its subdomains in subsequent Certificate requests from the same Applicant for up to a maximum of 398 days.

Remote Network Perspectives performing Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration:

MUST: - Network Hardening - Rely upon networks (e.g., Internet Service Providers or Cloud Provider Networks) implementing measures to mitigate BGP routing incidents in the global Internet routing system for providing internet connectivity to the Network Perspective.

SHOULD: - Facility & Service Provider Requirements - Be hosted from an ISO/IEC 27001 certified facility or equivalent security framework independently audited and certified or reported. - Rely on services covered in one of the following reports: System and Organization Controls 2 (SOC 2), IASE 3000, ENISA 715, FedRAMP Moderate, C5:2020, CSA STAR CCM, or equivalent services framework independently audited and certified or reported. - Vulnerability Detection and Patch Management - Implement intrusion detection and prevention controls to protect against common network and system threats. - Document and follow a vulnerability correction process that addresses the identification, review, response, and remediation of vulnerabilities. - Undergo or perform a Vulnerability Scan at least every three (3) months. - Undergo a Penetration Test on at least an annual basis. - Apply recommended security patches within six (6) months of the security patch’s availability, unless the CA documents that the security patch would introduce additional vulnerabilities or instabilities that outweigh the benefits of applying the security patch. - System Hardening - Disable all accounts, applications, services, protocols, and ports that are not used. - Implement multi-factor authentication for all user accounts. - Network Hardening - Configure each network boundary control (firewall, switch, router, gateway, or other network control device or system) with rules that support only the services, protocols, ports, and communications identified as necessary to its operations. - Rely upon networks (e.g., Internet Service Providers) that: 1) use mechanisms based on Secure Inter-Domain Routing (RFC 6480), for example, BGP Prefix Origin Validation (RFC 6811), 2) make use of other non-RPKI route-leak prevention mechanisms (such as RFC 9234), and 3) apply current best practices described in BCP 194. While It is RECOMMENDED that under normal operating conditions Network Perspectives performing Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration forward all Internet traffic via a network or set of networks that filter RPKI-invalid BGP routes as defined by RFC 6811, it is NOT REQUIRED.

Beyond the above considerations, computing systems performing Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration are considered outside of the audit scope described in Section 8 of these Requirements.

If any of the above considerations are performed by a Delegated Third Party, the CA MAY obtain reasonable evidence from the Delegated Third Party to ascertain assurance that one or more of the above considerations are followed. As an exception to Section 1.3.2, Delegated Third Parties are not required to be within the audit scope described in Section 8 of these Requirements to satisfy the above considerations.

Phased Implementation Timeline: - Effective September 15, 2024, the CA SHOULD implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration using at least two (2) remote Network Perspectives. - Effective March 15, 2025, the CA MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration using at least two (2) remote Network Perspectives. The CA MAY proceed with certificate issuance if the number of remote Network Perspectives that do not corroborate the determinations made by the Primary Network Perspective (“non-corroborations”) is greater than allowed in the Quorum Requirements table.
- Effective September 15, 2025, the CA MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration using at least two (2) remote Network Perspectives. The CA MUST NOT proceed with certificate issuance if the number of non-corroborations is greater than allowed in the Quorum Requirements table. - Effective March 15, 2026, the CA MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration using at least three (3) remote Network Perspectives. The CA MUST NOT proceed with certificate issuance if the number of non-corroborations is greater than allowed in the Quorum Requirements table and if the remote Network Perspectives that do corroborate the determinations made by the Primary Network Perspective do not fall within the service regions of at least two (2) distinct Regional Internet Registries.
- Effective June 15, 2026, the CA MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration using at least four (4) remote Network Perspectives. The CA MUST NOT proceed with certificate issuance if the number of non-corroborations is greater than allowed in the Quorum Requirements table and if the remote Network Perspectives that do corroborate the determinations made by the Primary Network Perspective do not fall within the service regions of at least two (2) distinct Regional Internet Registries. - Effective December 15, 2026, the CA MUST implement Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration using at least five (5) remote Network Perspectives. The CA MUST NOT proceed with certificate issuance if the number of non-corroborations is greater than allowed in the Quorum Requirements table and if the remote Network Perspectives that do corroborate the determinations made by the Primary Network Perspective do not fall within the service regions of at least two (2) distinct Regional Internet Registries.

3.2.3 Authentication of individual identity

If an Applicant subject to this Section 3.2.3 is a natural person, then the CA SHALL verify the Applicant’s name, Applicant’s address, and the authenticity of the certificate request.

The CA SHALL verify the Applicant’s name using a legible copy, which discernibly shows the Applicant’s face, of at least one currently valid government-issued photo ID (passport, drivers license, military ID, national ID, or equivalent document type). The CA SHALL inspect the copy for any indication of alteration or falsification.

The CA SHALL verify the Applicant’s address using a form of identification that the CA determines to be reliable, such as a government ID, utility bill, or bank or credit card statement. The CA MAY rely on the same government-issued ID that was used to verify the Applicant’s name.

The CA SHALL verify the certificate request with the Applicant using a Reliable Method of Communication.

3.2.4 Non-verified subscriber information

3.2.5 Validation of authority

If the Applicant for a Certificate containing Subject Identity Information is an organization, the CA SHALL use a Reliable Method of Communication to verify the authenticity of the Applicant Representative’s certificate request.

The CA MAY use the sources listed in Section 3.2.2.1 to verify the Reliable Method of Communication. Provided that the CA uses a Reliable Method of Communication, the CA MAY establish the authenticity of the certificate request directly with the Applicant Representative or with an authoritative source within the Applicant’s organization, such as the Applicant’s main business offices, corporate offices, human resource offices, information technology offices, or other department that the CA deems appropriate.

In addition, the CA SHALL establish a process that allows an Applicant to specify the individuals who may request Certificates. If an Applicant specifies, in writing, the individuals who may request a Certificate, then the CA SHALL NOT accept any certificate requests that are outside this specification. The CA SHALL provide an Applicant with a list of its authorized certificate requesters upon the Applicant’s verified written request.

3.2.6 Criteria for Interoperation or Certification

The CA SHALL disclose all Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificates that identify the CA as the Subject, provided that the CA arranged for or accepted the establishment of the trust relationship (i.e. the Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate at issue).

3.3 Identification and authentication for re-key requests

3.3.1 Identification and authentication for routine re-key

3.3.2 Identification and authentication for re-key after revocation

3.4 Identification and authentication for revocation request

4. CERTIFICATE LIFE-CYCLE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Certificate Application

4.1.1 Who can submit a certificate application

No stipulation.

4.1.2 Enrollment process and responsibilities

Prior to the issuance of a Certificate, the CA SHALL obtain the following documentation from the Applicant:

1. A certificate request, which may be electronic; and
2. An executed Subscriber Agreement or Terms of Use, which may be electronic.

The CA SHOULD obtain any additional documentation the CA determines necessary to meet these Requirements.

Prior to the issuance of a Certificate, the CA SHALL obtain from the Applicant a certificate request in a form prescribed by the CA and that complies with these Requirements. One certificate request MAY suffice for multiple Certificates to be issued to the same Applicant, subject to the aging and updating requirement in Section 4.2.1, provided that each Certificate is supported by a valid, current certificate request signed by the appropriate Applicant Representative on behalf of the Applicant. The certificate request MAY be made, submitted and/or signed electronically.

The certificate request MUST contain a request from, or on behalf of, the Applicant for the issuance of a Certificate, and a certification by, or on behalf of, the Applicant that all of the information contained therein is correct.

4.2 Certificate application processing

4.2.1 Performing identification and authentication functions

The certificate request MAY include all factual information about the Applicant to be included in the Certificate, and such additional information as is necessary for the CA to obtain from the Applicant in order to comply with these Requirements and the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement. In cases where the certificate request does not contain all the necessary information about the Applicant, the CA SHALL obtain the remaining information from the Applicant or, having obtained it from a reliable, independent, third-party data source, confirm it with the Applicant. The CA SHALL establish and follow a documented procedure for verifying all data requested for inclusion in the Certificate by the Applicant.

Applicant information MUST include, but not be limited to, at least one Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP address to be included in the Certificate’s subjectAltName extension.

Section 6.3.2 limits the validity period of Subscriber Certificates. The CA MAY use the documents and data provided in Section 3.2 to verify certificate information, or may reuse previous validations themselves, provided that the CA obtained the data or document from a source specified under Section 3.2 or completed the validation itself no more than 825 days prior to issuing the Certificate. For validation of Domain Names and IP Addresses according to Section 3.2.2.4 and 3.2.2.5, any data, document, or completed validation used MUST be obtained no more than 398 days prior to issuing the Certificate.

In no case may a prior validation be reused if any data or document used in the prior validation was obtained more than the maximum time permitted for reuse of the data or document prior to issuing the Certificate.

After the change to any validation method specified in the Baseline Requirements or EV Guidelines, a CA may continue to reuse validation data or documents collected prior to the change, or the validation itself, for the period stated in this BR 4.2.1 unless otherwise specifically provided in a ballot.

The CA SHALL develop, maintain, and implement documented procedures that identify and require additional verification activity for High Risk Certificate Requests prior to the Certificate’s approval, as reasonably necessary to ensure that such requests are properly verified under these Requirements.

If a Delegated Third Party fulfills any of the CA’s obligations under this section , the CA SHALL verify that the process used by the Delegated Third Party to identify and further verify High Risk Certificate Requests provides at least the same level of assurance as the CA’s own processes.

4.2.2 Approval or rejection of certificate applications

CAs SHALL NOT issue certificates containing Internal Names or Reserved IP Addresses, as such names cannot be validated according to Section 3.2.2.4 or Section 3.2.2.5.

4.2.3 Time to process certificate applications

No stipulation.

4.3 Certificate issuance

4.3.1 CA actions during certificate issuance

4.3.1.1 Manual authorization of certificate issuance for Root CAs

Certificate issuance by the Root CA SHALL require an individual authorized by the CA (i.e. the CA system operator, system officer, or PKI administrator) to deliberately issue a direct command in order for the Root CA to perform a certificate signing operation.

4.3.1.2 Linting of to-be-signed Certificate content

Due to the complexity involved in implementing Certificate Profiles that conform to these Requirements, it is considered best practice for the CA to implement a Linting process to test the technical conformity of each to-be-signed artifact prior to signing it. When a Precertificate has undergone Linting, it is not necessary for the corresponding to-be-signed Certificate to also undergo Linting, provided that the CA has a technical control to verify that the to-be-signed Certificate corresponds to the to-be-signed Precertificate in the manner described by RFC 6962, Section 3.2. Effective 2024-09-15, the CA SHOULD implement such a Linting process. Effective 2025-03-15, the CA SHALL implement such a Linting process.

Methods used to produce a certificate containing the to-be-signed Certificate content include, but are not limited to:

1. Sign the tbsCertificate with a “dummy” Private Key whose Public Key component is not certified by a Certificate that chains to a publicly-trusted CA Certificate; or
2. Specify a static value for the signature field of the Certificate ASN.1 SEQUENCE.

CAs MAY implement their own certificate Linting tools, but CAs SHOULD use the Linting tools that have been widely adopted by the industry (see https://cabforum.org/resources/tools/).

CAs are encouraged to contribute to open-source Linting projects, such as by:

• creating new or improving existing lints,
• reporting potentially inaccurate linting results as bugs,
• notifying maintainers of Linting software of checks that are not covered by existing lints,
• updating documentation of existing lints, and
• generating test certificates for positive/negative tests of specific lints.

4.3.1.3 Linting of issued Certificates

CAs MAY use a Linting process to test each issued Certificate.

4.3.2 Notification to subscriber by the CA of issuance of certificate

No stipulation.

4.4 Certificate acceptance

4.4.1 Conduct constituting certificate acceptance

No stipulation.

4.4.2 Publication of the certificate by the CA

No stipulation.

4.4.3 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities

No stipulation.

4.5 Key pair and certificate usage

4.5.1 Subscriber private key and certificate usage

See Section 9.6.3, provisions 2. and 4.

4.5.2 Relying party public key and certificate usage

No stipulation.

4.6 Certificate renewal

4.6.1 Circumstance for certificate renewal

No stipulation.

4.6.2 Who may request renewal

No stipulation.

4.6.3 Processing certificate renewal requests

No stipulation.

4.6.4 Notification of new certificate issuance to subscriber

No stipulation.

4.6.5 Conduct constituting acceptance of a renewal certificate

No stipulation.

4.6.6 Publication of the renewal certificate by the CA

No stipulation.

4.6.7 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities

No stipulation.

4.7 Certificate re-key

4.7.1 Circumstance for certificate re-key

No stipulation.

4.7.2 Who may request certification of a new public key

No stipulation.

4.7.3 Processing certificate re-keying requests

No stipulation.

4.7.4 Notification of new certificate issuance to subscriber

No stipulation.

4.7.5 Conduct constituting acceptance of a re-keyed certificate

No stipulation.

4.7.6 Publication of the re-keyed certificate by the CA

No stipulation.

4.7.7 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities

No stipulation.

4.8 Certificate modification

4.8.1 Circumstance for certificate modification

No stipulation.

4.8.2 Who may request certificate modification

No stipulation.

4.8.3 Processing certificate modification requests

No stipulation.

4.8.4 Notification of new certificate issuance to subscriber

No stipulation.

4.8.5 Conduct constituting acceptance of modified certificate

No stipulation.

4.8.6 Publication of the modified certificate by the CA

No stipulation.

4.8.7 Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities

No stipulation.

4.9 Certificate revocation and suspension

4.9.1 Circumstances for revocation

4.9.1.1 Reasons for Revoking a Subscriber Certificate

The CA MAY support revocation of Short-lived Subscriber Certificates.

With the exception of Short-lived Subscriber Certificates, the CA SHALL revoke a Certificate within 24 hours and use the corresponding CRLReason (see Section 7.2.2) if one or more of the following occurs:

1. The Subscriber requests in writing, without specifying a CRLreason, that the CA revoke the Certificate (CRLReason “unspecified (0)” which results in no reasonCode extension being provided in the CRL);
2. The Subscriber notifies the CA that the original certificate request was not authorized and does not retroactively grant authorization (CRLReason #9, privilegeWithdrawn);
3. The CA obtains evidence that the Subscriber’s Private Key corresponding to the Public Key in the Certificate suffered a Key Compromise (CRLReason #1, keyCompromise);
4. The CA is made aware of a demonstrated or proven method that can easily compute the Subscriber’s Private Key based on the Public Key in the Certificate, including but not limited to those identified in Section 6.1.1.3(5) (CRLReason #1, keyCompromise);
5. The CA obtains evidence that the validation of domain authorization or control for any Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP address in the Certificate should not be relied upon (CRLReason #4, superseded).

With the exception of Short-lived Subscriber Certificates, the CA SHOULD revoke a certificate within 24 hours and MUST revoke a Certificate within 5 days and use the corresponding CRLReason (see Section 7.2.2) if one or more of the following occurs:

6. The Certificate no longer complies with the requirements of Section 6.1.5 and Section 6.1.6 (CRLReason #4, superseded);
7. The CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was misused (CRLReason #9, privilegeWithdrawn);
8. The CA is made aware that a Subscriber has violated one or more of its material obligations under the Subscriber Agreement or Terms of Use (CRLReason #9, privilegeWithdrawn);
9. The CA is made aware of any circumstance indicating that use of a Fully-Qualified Domain Name or IP address in the Certificate is no longer legally permitted (e.g. a court or arbitrator has revoked a Domain Name Registrant’s right to use the Domain Name, a relevant licensing or services agreement between the Domain Name Registrant and the Applicant has terminated, or the Domain Name Registrant has failed to renew the Domain Name) (CRLReason #5, cessationOfOperation);
10. The CA is made aware that a Wildcard Certificate has been used to authenticate a fraudulently misleading subordinate Fully-Qualified Domain Name (CRLReason #9, privilegeWithdrawn);
11. The CA is made aware of a material change in the information contained in the Certificate (CRLReason #9, privilegeWithdrawn);
12. The CA is made aware that the Certificate was not issued in accordance with these Requirements or the CA’s Certificate Policy or Certification Practice Statement (CRLReason #4, superseded);
13. The CA determines or is made aware that any of the information appearing in the Certificate is inaccurate (CRLReason #9, privilegeWithdrawn);
14. The CA’s right to issue Certificates under these Requirements expires or is revoked or terminated, unless the CA has made arrangements to continue maintaining the CRL/OCSP Repository (CRLReason “unspecified (0)” which results in no reasonCode extension being provided in the CRL);
15. Revocation is required by the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement for a reason that is not otherwise required to be specified by this section 4.9.1.1 (CRLReason “unspecified (0)” which results in no reasonCode extension being provided in the CRL); or
16. The CA is made aware of a demonstrated or proven method that exposes the Subscriber’s Private Key to compromise or if there is clear evidence that the specific method used to generate the Private Key was flawed (CRLReason #1, keyCompromise).

4.9.1.2 Reasons for Revoking a Subordinate CA Certificate

The Issuing CA SHALL revoke a Subordinate CA Certificate within seven (7) days if one or more of the following occurs:

1. The Subordinate CA requests revocation in writing;
2. The Subordinate CA notifies the Issuing CA that the original certificate request was not authorized and does not retroactively grant authorization;
3. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Subordinate CA’s Private Key corresponding to the Public Key in the Certificate suffered a Key Compromise or no longer complies with the requirements of Section 6.1.5 and Section 6.1.6;
4. The Issuing CA obtains evidence that the Certificate was misused;
5. The Issuing CA is made aware that the Certificate was not issued in accordance with or that Subordinate CA has not complied with this document or the applicable Certificate Policy or Certification Practice Statement;
6. The Issuing CA determines that any of the information appearing in the Certificate is inaccurate or misleading;
7. The Issuing CA or Subordinate CA ceases operations for any reason and has not made arrangements for another CA to provide revocation support for the Certificate;
8. The Issuing CA’s or Subordinate CA’s right to issue Certificates under these Requirements expires or is revoked or terminated, unless the Issuing CA has made arrangements to continue maintaining the CRL/OCSP Repository; or
9. Revocation is required by the Issuing CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement.

4.9.2 Who can request revocation

The Subscriber, RA, or Issuing CA can initiate revocation. Additionally, Subscribers, Relying Parties, Application Software Suppliers, and other third parties may submit Certificate Problem Reports informing the issuing CA of reasonable cause to revoke the certificate.

4.9.3 Procedure for revocation request

The CA SHALL provide a process for Subscribers to request revocation of their own Certificates. The process MUST be described in the CA’s Certificate Policy or Certification Practice Statement. The CA SHALL maintain a continuous 24x7 ability to accept and respond to revocation requests and Certificate Problem Reports.

The CA SHALL provide Subscribers, Relying Parties, Application Software Suppliers, and other third parties with clear instructions for reporting suspected Private Key Compromise, Certificate misuse, or other types of fraud, compromise, misuse, inappropriate conduct, or any other matter related to Certificates. The CA SHALL publicly disclose the instructions through a readily accessible online means and in Section 1.5.2 of their CPS.

4.9.4 Revocation request grace period

No stipulation.

4.9.5 Time within which CA must process the revocation request

Within 24 hours after receiving a Certificate Problem Report, the CA SHALL investigate the facts and circumstances related to a Certificate Problem Report and provide a preliminary report on its findings to both the Subscriber and the entity who filed the Certificate Problem Report. After reviewing the facts and circumstances, the CA SHALL work with the Subscriber and any entity reporting the Certificate Problem Report or other revocation-related notice to establish whether or not the certificate will be revoked, and if so, a date which the CA will revoke the certificate. The period from receipt of the Certificate Problem Report or revocation-related notice to published revocation MUST NOT exceed the time frame set forth in Section 4.9.1.1. The date selected by the CA SHOULD consider the following criteria:

1. The nature of the alleged problem (scope, context, severity, magnitude, risk of harm);
2. The consequences of revocation (direct and collateral impacts to Subscribers and Relying Parties);
3. The number of Certificate Problem Reports received about a particular Certificate or Subscriber;
4. The entity making the complaint (for example, a complaint from a law enforcement official that a Web site is engaged in illegal activities should carry more weight than a complaint from a consumer alleging that they didn’t receive the goods they ordered); and
5. Relevant legislation.

4.9.6 Revocation checking requirement for relying parties

No stipulation.

Note: Following certificate issuance, a certificate may be revoked for reasons stated in Section 4.9. Therefore, relying parties should check the revocation status of all certificates that contain a CDP or OCSP pointer.

4.9.7 CRL issuance frequency

CRLs must be available via a publicly-accessible HTTP URL (i.e., “published”).

Within twenty-four (24) hours of issuing its first Certificate, the CA MUST generate and publish either: - a full and complete CRL; OR - partitioned (i.e., “sharded”) CRLs that, when aggregated, represent the equivalent of a full and complete CRL.

CAs issuing Subscriber Certificates:
1. MUST update and publish a new CRL at least every: - seven (7) days if all Certificates include an Authority Information Access extension with an id-ad-ocsp accessMethod (“AIA OCSP pointer”); or - four (4) days in all other cases; 2. MUST update and publish a new CRL within twenty-four (24) hours after recording a Certificate as revoked.

CAs issuing CA Certificates:
1. MUST update and publish a new CRL at least every twelve (12) months; 2. MUST update and publish a new CRL within twenty-four (24) hours after recording a Certificate as revoked.

CAs MUST continue issuing CRLs until one of the following is true: - all Subordinate CA Certificates containing the same Subject Public Key are expired or revoked; OR - the corresponding Subordinate CA Private Key is destroyed.

4.9.8 Maximum latency for CRLs (if applicable)

No stipulation.

4.9.9 On-line revocation/status checking availability

The validity interval of an OCSP response is the difference in time between the thisUpdate and nextUpdate field, inclusive. For purposes of computing differences, a difference of 3,600 seconds shall be equal to one hour, and a difference of 86,400 seconds shall be equal to one day, ignoring leap-seconds.

A certificate serial is “assigned” if:

• a Certificate or Precertificate with that serial number has been issued by the Issuing CA; or
• a Precertificate with that serial number has been issued by a Precertificate Signing Certificate, as defined in Section 7.1.2.4, associated with the Issuing CA.

A certificate serial is “unassigned” if it is not “assigned”.

The following SHALL apply for communicating the status of Certificates and Precertificates which include an Authority Information Access extension with an id-ad-ocsp accessMethod.

OCSP responders operated by the CA SHALL support the HTTP GET method, as described in RFC 6960 and/or RFC 5019. The CA MAY process the Nonce extension (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.1.2) in accordance with RFC 8954.

For the status of a Subscriber Certificate or its corresponding Precertificate:

• Effective 2025-01-15, an authoritative OCSP response MUST be available (i.e. the responder MUST NOT respond with the “unknown” status) starting no more than 15 minutes after the Certificate or Precertificate is first published or otherwise made available.
• For OCSP responses with validity intervals less than sixteen hours, the CA SHALL provide an updated OCSP response prior to one-half of the validity period before the nextUpdate.
• For OCSP responses with validity intervals greater than or equal to sixteen hours, the CA SHALL provide an updated OCSP response at least eight hours prior to the nextUpdate, and no later than four days after the thisUpdate.

For the status of a Subordinate CA Certificate, the CA SHALL provide an updated OCSP response at least every twelve months, and within 24 hours after revoking the Certificate.

The following SHALL apply for communicating the status of all Certificates for which an OCSP responder is willing or required to respond.

OCSP responses MUST conform to RFC6960 and/or RFC5019. OCSP responses MUST either:

1. be signed by the CA that issued the Certificates whose revocation status is being checked, or
2. be signed by an OCSP Responder which complies with the OCSP Responder Certificate Profile in Section 7.1.2.8.

OCSP responses for Subscriber Certificates MUST have a validity interval greater than or equal to eight hours and less than or equal to ten days.

If the OCSP responder receives a request for the status of a certificate serial number that is “unassigned”, then the responder SHOULD NOT respond with a “good” status. If the OCSP responder is for a CA that is not Technically Constrained in line with Section 7.1.2.3 or Section 7.1.2.5, the responder MUST NOT respond with a “good” status for such requests.

4.9.10 On-line revocation checking requirements

No Stipulation.

4.9.11 Other forms of revocation advertisements available

No Stipulation.

4.9.12 Special requirements re key compromise

See Section 4.9.1.

4.9.13 Circumstances for suspension

The Repository MUST NOT include entries that indicate that a Certificate is suspended.

4.9.14 Who can request suspension

Not applicable.

4.9.15 Procedure for suspension request

Not applicable.

4.9.16 Limits on suspension period

Not applicable.

4.10 Certificate status services

4.10.1 Operational characteristics

Revocation entries on a CRL or OCSP Response MUST NOT be removed until after the Expiry Date of the revoked Certificate.

4.10.2 Service availability

The CA SHALL operate and maintain its CRL and optional OCSP capability with resources sufficient to provide a response time of ten seconds or less under normal operating conditions.

The CA SHALL maintain an online 24x7 Repository that application software can use to automatically check the current status of all unexpired Certificates issued by the CA.

The CA SHALL maintain a continuous 24x7 ability to respond internally to a high-priority Certificate Problem Report, and where appropriate, forward such a complaint to law enforcement authorities, and/or revoke a Certificate that is the subject of such a complaint.

4.10.3 Optional features

No stipulation.

4.11 End of subscription

No stipulation.

4.12 Key escrow and recovery

4.12.1 Key escrow and recovery policy and practices

No stipulation.

4.12.2 Session key encapsulation and recovery policy and practices

Not applicable.

5. MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONAL, AND PHYSICAL CONTROLS

The CA/Browser Forum’s Network and Certificate System Security Requirements are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

The CA SHALL develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive security program designed to:

1. Protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of Certificate Data and Certificate Management Processes;
2. Protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the Certificate Data and Certificate Management Processes;
3. Protect against unauthorized or unlawful access, use, disclosure, alteration, or destruction of any Certificate Data or Certificate Management Processes;
4. Protect against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, any Certificate Data or Certificate Management Processes; and
5. Comply with all other security requirements applicable to the CA by law.

The Certificate Management Process MUST include:

1. physical security and environmental controls;
2. system integrity controls, including configuration management, integrity maintenance of trusted code, and malware detection/prevention;
3. network security and firewall management, including port restrictions and IP address filtering;
4. user management, separate trusted-role assignments, education, awareness, and training; and
5. logical access controls, activity logging, and inactivity time-outs to provide individual accountability.

The CA’s security program MUST include an annual Risk Assessment that:

1. Identifies foreseeable internal and external threats that could result in unauthorized access, disclosure, misuse, alteration, or destruction of any Certificate Data or Certificate Management Processes;
2. Assesses the likelihood and potential damage of these threats, taking into consideration the sensitivity of the Certificate Data and Certificate Management Processes; and
3. Assesses the sufficiency of the policies, procedures, information systems, technology, and other arrangements that the CA has in place to counter such threats.

Based on the Risk Assessment, the CA SHALL develop, implement, and maintain a security plan consisting of security procedures, measures, and products designed to achieve the objectives set forth above and to manage and control the risks identified during the Risk Assessment, commensurate with the sensitivity of the Certificate Data and Certificate Management Processes. The security plan MUST include administrative, organizational, technical, and physical safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the Certificate Data and Certificate Management Processes. The security plan MUST also take into account then-available technology and the cost of implementing the specific measures, and SHALL implement a reasonable level of security appropriate to the harm that might result from a breach of security and the nature of the data to be protected.

5.1 Physical Security Controls

5.1.1 Site location and construction

5.1.2 Physical access

5.1.3 Power and air conditioning

5.1.4 Water exposures

5.1.5 Fire prevention and protection

5.1.6 Media storage

5.1.7 Waste disposal

5.1.8 Off-site backup

5.2 Procedural controls

5.2.1 Trusted roles

5.2.2 Number of Individuals Required per Task

The CA Private Key SHALL be backed up, stored, and recovered only by personnel in trusted roles using, at least, dual control in a physically secured environment.

5.2.3 Identification and authentication for each role

5.2.4 Roles requiring separation of duties

5.3 Personnel controls

5.3.1 Qualifications, experience, and clearance requirements

Prior to the engagement of any person in the Certificate Management Process, whether as an employee, agent, or an independent contractor of the CA, the CA SHALL verify the identity and trustworthiness of such person.

5.3.2 Background check procedures

5.3.3 Training Requirements and Procedures

The CA SHALL provide all personnel performing information verification duties with skills-training that covers basic Public Key Infrastructure knowledge, authentication and vetting policies and procedures (including the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement), common threats to the information verification process (including phishing and other social engineering tactics), and these Requirements.

The CA SHALL maintain records of such training and ensure that personnel entrusted with Validation Specialist duties maintain a skill level that enables them to perform such duties satisfactorily.

The CA SHALL document that each Validation Specialist possesses the skills required by a task before allowing the Validation Specialist to perform that task.

The CA SHALL require all Validation Specialists to pass an examination provided by the CA on the information verification requirements outlined in these Requirements.

5.3.4 Retraining frequency and requirements

All personnel in Trusted roles SHALL maintain skill levels consistent with the CA’s training and performance programs.

5.3.5 Job rotation frequency and sequence

5.3.6 Sanctions for unauthorized actions

5.3.7 Independent Contractor Controls

The CA SHALL verify that the Delegated Third Party’s personnel involved in the issuance of a Certificate meet the training and skills requirements of Section 5.3.3 and the document retention and event logging requirements of Section 5.4.1.

5.3.8 Documentation supplied to personnel

5.4 Audit logging procedures

5.4.1 Types of events recorded

The CA and each Delegated Third Party SHALL record events related to the security of their Certificate Systems, Certificate Management Systems, Root CA Systems, and Delegated Third Party Systems. The CA and each Delegated Third Party SHALL record events related to their actions taken to process a certificate request and to issue a Certificate, including all information generated and documentation received in connection with the certificate request; the time and date; and the personnel involved. The CA SHALL make these records available to its Qualified Auditor as proof of the CA’s compliance with these Requirements.

The CA SHALL record at least the following events:

1. CA certificate and key lifecycle events, including:
   1. Key generation, backup, storage, recovery, archival, and destruction;
   2. Certificate requests, renewal, and re-key requests, and revocation;
   3. Approval and rejection of certificate requests;
   4. Cryptographic device lifecycle management events;
   5. Generation of Certificate Revocation Lists;
   6. Signing of OCSP Responses (as described in Section 4.9 and Section 4.10); and
   7. Introduction of new Certificate Profiles and retirement of existing Certificate Profiles.
2. Subscriber Certificate lifecycle management events, including:
   1. Certificate requests, renewal, and re-key requests, and revocation;
   2. All verification activities stipulated in these Requirements and the CA’s Certification Practice Statement;
   3. Approval and rejection of certificate requests;
   4. Issuance of Certificates;
   5. Generation of Certificate Revocation Lists; and
   6. Signing of OCSP Responses (as described in Section 4.9 and Section 4.10).
   7. Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration attempts from each Network Perspective, minimally recording the following information:
      • 1. an identifier that uniquely identifies the Network Perspective used;
      • 2. the attempted domain name and/or IP address; and
      • 3. the result of the attempt (e.g., “domain validation pass/fail”, “CAA permission/prohibition”).
   8. Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration quorum results for each attempted domain name or IP address represented in a Certificate request (i.e., “3/4” which should be interpreted as “Three (3) out of four (4) attempted Network Perspectives corroborated the determinations made by the Primary Network Perspective).
3. Security events, including:
   1. Successful and unsuccessful PKI system access attempts;
   2. PKI and security system actions performed;
   3. Security profile changes;
   4. Installation, update and removal of software on a Certificate System;
   5. System crashes, hardware failures, and other anomalies;
   6. Relevant router and firewall activities (as described in Section 5.4.1.1); and
   7. Entries to and exits from the CA facility.

Log records MUST include at least the following elements:

1. Date and time of event;
2. Identity of the person making the journal record (when applicable); and
3. Description of the event.

5.4.1.1 Router and firewall activities logs

Logging of router and firewall activities necessary to meet the requirements of Section 5.4.1, Subsection 3.6 MUST at a minimum include:

1. Successful and unsuccessful login attempts to routers and firewalls; and
2. Logging of all administrative actions performed on routers and firewalls, including configuration changes, firmware updates, and access control modifications; and
3. Logging of all changes made to firewall rules, including additions, modifications, and deletions; and
4. Logging of all system events and errors, including hardware failures, software crashes, and system restarts.

5.4.2 Frequency of processing audit log

5.4.3 Retention period for audit log

The CA and each Delegated Third Party SHALL retain, for at least two (2) years:

1. CA certificate and key lifecycle management event records (as set forth in Section 5.4.1 (1)) after the later occurrence of:
   1. the destruction of the CA Private Key; or
   2. the revocation or expiration of the final CA Certificate in that set of Certificates that have an X.509v3 basicConstraints extension with the cA field set to true and which share a common Public Key corresponding to the CA Private Key;
2. Subscriber Certificate lifecycle management event records (as set forth in Section 5.4.1 (2)) after the expiration of the Subscriber Certificate;
3. Any security event records (as set forth in Section 5.4.1 (3)) after the event occurred.

Note: While these Requirements set the minimum retention period, the CA MAY choose a greater value as more appropriate in order to be able to investigate possible security or other types of incidents that will require retrospection and examination of past audit log events.

5.4.4 Protection of audit log

5.4.5 Audit log backup procedures

5.4.6 Audit collection System (internal vs. external)

5.4.7 Notification to event-causing subject

5.4.8 Vulnerability assessments

Additionally, the CA’s security program MUST include an annual Risk Assessment that:

1. Identifies foreseeable internal and external threats that could result in unauthorized access, disclosure, misuse, alteration, or destruction of any Certificate Data or Certificate Management Processes;
2. Assesses the likelihood and potential damage of these threats, taking into consideration the sensitivity of the Certificate Data and Certificate Management Processes; and
3. Assesses the sufficiency of the policies, procedures, information systems, technology, and other arrangements that the CA has in place to counter such threats.

5.5 Records archival

5.5.1 Types of records archived

The CA and each Delegated Third Party SHALL archive all audit logs (as set forth in Section 5.4.1).

Additionally, the CA and each Delegated Third Party SHALL archive: 1. Documentation related to the security of their Certificate Systems, Certificate Management Systems, Root CA Systems, and Delegated Third Party Systems; and 2. Documentation related to their verification, issuance, and revocation of certificate requests and Certificates.

5.5.2 Retention period for archive

Archived audit logs (as set forth in Section 5.5.1 SHALL be retained for a period of at least two (2) years from their record creation timestamp, or as long as they are required to be retained per Section 5.4.3, whichever is longer.

Additionally, the CA and each Delegated Third Party SHALL retain, for at least two (2) years: 1. All archived documentation related to the security of Certificate Systems, Certificate Management Systems, Root CA Systems and Delegated Third Party Systems (as set forth in Section 5.5.1); and 2. All archived documentation relating to the verification, issuance, and revocation of certificate requests and Certificates (as set forth in Section 5.5.1) after the later occurrence of: 1. such records and documentation were last relied upon in the verification, issuance, or revocation of certificate requests and Certificates; or 2. the expiration of the Subscriber Certificates relying upon such records and documentation.

Note: While these Requirements set the minimum retention period, the CA MAY choose a greater value as more appropriate in order to be able to investigate possible security or other types of incidents that will require retrospection and examination of past records archived.

5.5.3 Protection of archive

5.5.4 Archive backup procedures

5.5.5 Requirements for time-stamping of records

5.5.6 Archive collection system (internal or external)

5.5.7 Procedures to obtain and verify archive information

5.6 Key changeover

5.7 Compromise and disaster recovery

5.7.1 Incident and compromise handling procedures

CA organizations shall have an Incident Response Plan and a Disaster Recovery Plan.

The CA SHALL document a business continuity and disaster recovery procedures designed to notify and reasonably protect Application Software Suppliers, Subscribers, and Relying Parties in the event of a disaster, security compromise, or business failure. The CA is not required to publicly disclose its business continuity plans but SHALL make its business continuity plan and security plans available to the CA’s auditors upon request. The CA SHALL annually test, review, and update these procedures.

The business continuity plan MUST include:

1. The conditions for activating the plan,
2. Emergency procedures,
3. Fallback procedures,
4. Resumption procedures,
5. A maintenance schedule for the plan;
6. Awareness and education requirements;
7. The responsibilities of the individuals;
8. Recovery time objective (RTO);
9. Regular testing of contingency plans.
10. The CA’s plan to maintain or restore the CA’s business operations in a timely manner following interruption to or failure of critical business processes
11. A requirement to store critical cryptographic materials (i.e., secure cryptographic device and activation materials) at an alternate location;
12. What constitutes an acceptable system outage and recovery time
13. How frequently backup copies of essential business information and software are taken;
14. The distance of recovery facilities to the CA’s main site; and
15. Procedures for securing its facility to the extent possible during the period of time following a disaster and prior to restoring a secure environment either at the original or a remote site.

5.7.2 Recovery Procedures if Computing resources, software, and/or data are corrupted

5.7.3 Recovery Procedures after Key Compromise

5.7.4 Business continuity capabilities after a disaster

5.8 CA or RA termination

6. TECHNICAL SECURITY CONTROLS

6.1 Key pair generation and installation

6.1.1 Key pair generation

6.1.1.1 CA Key Pair Generation

For CA Key Pairs that are either

1. used as a CA Key Pair for a Root Certificate or
2. used as a CA Key Pair for a Subordinate CA Certificate, where the Subordinate CA is not the operator of the Root CA or an Affiliate of the Root CA,

the CA SHALL:

1. prepare and follow a Key Generation Script,
2. have a Qualified Auditor witness the CA Key Pair generation process or record a video of the entire CA Key Pair generation process, and
3. have a Qualified Auditor issue a report opining that the CA followed its key ceremony during its Key and Certificate generation process and the controls used to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the Key Pair.

For other CA Key Pairs that are for the operator of the Root CA or an Affiliate of the Root CA, the CA SHOULD:

1. prepare and follow a Key Generation Script and
2. have a Qualified Auditor witness the CA Key Pair generation process or record a video of the entire CA Key Pair generation process.

In all cases, the CA SHALL:

1. generate the CA Key Pair in a physically secured environment as described in the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement;
2. generate the CA Key Pair using personnel in Trusted Roles under the principles of multiple person control and split knowledge;
3. generate the CA Key Pair within cryptographic modules meeting the applicable technical and business requirements as disclosed in the CA’s Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement;
4. log its CA Key Pair generation activities; and
5. maintain effective controls to provide reasonable assurance that the Private Key was generated and protected in conformance with the procedures described in its Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement and (if applicable) its Key Generation Script.

6.1.1.2 RA Key Pair Generation

6.1.1.3 Subscriber Key Pair Generation

The CA SHALL reject a certificate request if one or more of the following conditions are met:

1. The Key Pair does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 6.1.5 and/or Section 6.1.6;
2. There is clear evidence that the specific method used to generate the Private Key was flawed;
3. The CA is aware of a demonstrated or proven method that exposes the Applicant’s Private Key to compromise;
4. The CA has previously been notified that the Applicant’s Private Key has suffered a Key Compromise using the CA’s procedure for revocation request as described in Section 4.9.3 and Section 4.9.12;
5. The Public Key corresponds to an industry-demonstrated weak Private Key. For requests submitted on or after November 15, 2024, at least the following precautions SHALL be implemented:
   1. In the case of Debian weak keys vulnerability (https://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys), the CA SHALL reject all keys found at https://github.com/cabforum/Debian-weak-keys/ for each key type (e.g. RSA, ECDSA) and size listed in the repository. For all other keys meeting the requirements of Section 6.1.5, with the exception of RSA key sizes greater than 8192 bits, the CA SHALL reject Debian weak keys.
   2. In the case of ROCA vulnerability, the CA SHALL reject keys identified by the tools available at https://github.com/crocs-muni/roca or equivalent.
   3. In the case of Close Primes vulnerability (https://fermatattack.secvuln.info/), the CA SHALL reject weak keys which can be factored within 100 rounds using Fermat’s factorization method.
   Suggested tools for checking for weak keys can be found here: https://cabforum.org/resources/tools/

If the Subscriber Certificate will contain an extKeyUsage extension containing either the values id-kp-serverAuth [RFC5280] or anyExtendedKeyUsage [RFC5280], the CA SHALL NOT generate a Key Pair on behalf of a Subscriber, and SHALL NOT accept a certificate request using a Key Pair previously generated by the CA.

6.1.2 Private key delivery to subscriber

Parties other than the Subscriber SHALL NOT archive the Subscriber Private Key without authorization by the Subscriber.

If the CA or any of its designated RAs become aware that a Subscriber’s Private Key has been communicated to an unauthorized person or an organization not affiliated with the Subscriber, then the CA SHALL revoke all certificates that include the Public Key corresponding to the communicated Private Key.

6.1.3 Public key delivery to certificate issuer

6.1.4 CA public key delivery to relying parties

6.1.5 Key sizes

For RSA key pairs the CA SHALL:

• Ensure that the modulus size, when encoded, is at least 2048 bits, and;
• Ensure that the modulus size, in bits, is evenly divisible by 8.

For ECDSA key pairs, the CA SHALL:

• Ensure that the key represents a valid point on the NIST P-256, NIST P-384 or NIST P-521 elliptic curve.

No other algorithms or key sizes are permitted.

6.1.6 Public key parameters generation and quality checking

RSA: The CA SHALL confirm that the value of the public exponent is an odd number equal to 3 or more. Additionally, the public exponent SHOULD be in the range between 2^16 + 1 and 2^256 - 1. The modulus SHOULD also have the following characteristics: an odd number, not the power of a prime, and have no factors smaller than 752. [Source: Section 5.3.3, NIST SP 800-89]

ECDSA: The CA SHOULD confirm the validity of all keys using either the ECC Full Public Key Validation Routine or the ECC Partial Public Key Validation Routine. [Source: Sections 5.6.2.3.2 and 5.6.2.3.3, respectively, of NIST SP 800-56A: Revision 2]

6.1.7 Key usage purposes (as per X.509 v3 key usage field)

Private Keys corresponding to Root Certificates MUST NOT be used to sign Certificates except in the following cases:

1. Self-signed Certificates to represent the Root CA itself;
2. Certificates for Subordinate CAs and Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificates;
3. Certificates for infrastructure purposes (administrative role certificates, internal CA operational device certificates); and
4. Certificates for OCSP Response verification.

6.2 Private Key Protection and Cryptographic Module Engineering Controls

The CA SHALL implement physical and logical safeguards to prevent unauthorized certificate issuance. Protection of the CA Private Key outside the validated system or device specified in Section 6.2.7 MUST consist of physical security, encryption, or a combination of both, implemented in a manner that prevents disclosure of the Private Key. The CA SHALL encrypt its Private Key with an algorithm and key-length that, according to the state of the art, are capable of withstanding cryptanalytic attacks for the residual life of the encrypted key or key part.

6.2.1 Cryptographic module standards and controls

6.2.2 Private key (n out of m) multi-person control

6.2.3 Private key escrow

6.2.4 Private key backup

See Section 5.2.2.

6.2.5 Private key archival

Parties other than the Subordinate CA SHALL NOT archive the Subordinate CA Private Keys without authorization by the Subordinate CA.

6.2.6 Private key transfer into or from a cryptographic module

If the Issuing CA generated the Private Key on behalf of the Subordinate CA, then the Issuing CA SHALL encrypt the Private Key for transport to the Subordinate CA. If the Issuing CA becomes aware that a Subordinate CA’s Private Key has been communicated to an unauthorized person or an organization not affiliated with the Subordinate CA, then the Issuing CA SHALL revoke all certificates that include the Public Key corresponding to the communicated Private Key.

6.2.7 Private key storage on cryptographic module

The CA SHALL protect its Private Key in a system or device that has been validated as meeting at least FIPS 140-2 level 3, FIPS 140-3 level 3, or an appropriate Common Criteria Protection Profile or Security Target, EAL 4 (or higher), which includes requirements to protect the Private Key and other assets against known threats.

6.2.8 Activating Private Keys

6.2.9 Deactivating Private Keys

6.2.10 Destroying Private Keys

6.2.11 Cryptographic Module Rating

6.3 Other aspects of key pair management

6.3.1 Public key archival

6.3.2 Certificate operational periods and key pair usage periods

Subscriber Certificates issued on or after 1 September 2020 SHOULD NOT have a Validity Period greater than 397 days and MUST NOT have a Validity Period greater than 398 days.

For the purpose of calculations, a day is measured as 86,400 seconds. Any amount of time greater than this, including fractional seconds and/or leap seconds, shall represent an additional day. For this reason, Subscriber Certificates SHOULD NOT be issued for the maximum permissible time by default, in order to account for such adjustments.

6.4 Activation data

6.4.1 Activation data generation and installation

6.4.2 Activation data protection

6.4.3 Other aspects of activation data

6.5 Computer security controls

6.5.1 Specific computer security technical requirements

The CA SHALL enforce multi-factor authentication for all accounts capable of directly causing certificate issuance.

6.5.2 Computer security rating

6.6 Life cycle technical controls

6.6.1 System development controls

If a CA uses Linting software developed by third parties, it SHOULD monitor for updated versions of that software and plan for updates no later than three (3) months from the release of the update.

The CA MAY perform Linting on the corpus of its unexpired, un-revoked Subscriber Certificates whenever it updates the Linting software.

6.6.2 Security management controls

6.6.3 Life cycle security controls

6.7 Network security controls

6.8 Time-stamping

7. CERTIFICATE, CRL, AND OCSP PROFILES

7.1 Certificate profile

The CA SHALL meet the technical requirements set forth in Section 2.2 - Publication of Information, Section 6.1.5 - Key Sizes, and Section 6.1.6 - Public Key Parameters Generation and Quality Checking.

Prior to 2023-09-15, the CA SHALL issue Certificates in accordance with the profile specified in these Requirements or the profile specified in version 1.8.6 of the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates. Effective 2023-09-15, the CA SHALL issue Certificates in accordance with the profile specified in these Requirements.

7.1.1 Version number(s)

Certificates MUST be of type X.509 v3.

7.1.2 Certificate Content and Extensions

If the CA asserts compliance with these Baseline Requirements, all certificates that it issues MUST comply with one of the following certificate profiles, which incorporate, and are derived from RFC 5280. Except as explicitly noted, all normative requirements imposed by RFC 5280 shall apply, in addition to the normative requirements imposed by this document. CAs SHOULD examine RFC 5280, Appendix B for further issues to be aware of.

• CA Certificates
  • Section 7.1.2.1 - Root CA Certificate Profile
  • Subordinate CA Certificates
    • Cross Certificates
      • Section 7.1.2.2 - Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate Profile
    • Technically Constrained CA Certificates
      • Section 7.1.2.3 - Technically-Constrained Non-TLS Subordinate CA Certificate Profile
      • Section 7.1.2.4 - Technically-Constrained Precertificate Signing CA Certificate Profile
      • Section 7.1.2.5 - Technically-Constrained TLS Subordinate CA Certificate Profile
    • Section 7.1.2.6 - TLS Subordinate CA Certificate Profile
• Section 7.1.2.7 - Subscriber (End-Entity) Certificate Profile
• Section 7.1.2.8 - OCSP Responder Certificate Profile
• Section 7.1.2.9 - Precertificate Profile

7.1.2.1 Root CA Certificate Profile

7.1.2.1.1 Root CA Validity

Note: This restriction applies even in the event of generating a new Root CA Certificate for an existing subject and subjectPublicKeyInfo (e.g. reissuance). The new CA Certificate MUST conform to these rules.

7.1.2.1.2 Root CA Extensions

7.1.2.1.3 Root CA Authority Key Identifier

7.1.2.1.4 Root CA Basic Constraints

7.1.2.2 Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate Profile

This Certificate Profile MAY be used when issuing a CA Certificate using the same Subject Name and Subject Public Key Information as one or more existing CA Certificate(s), whether a Root CA Certificate or Subordinate CA Certificate.

Before issuing a Cross-Certified Subordinate CA, the Issuing CA MUST confirm that the existing CA Certificate(s) are subject to these Baseline Requirements and were issued in compliance with the then-current version of the Baseline Requirements at time of issuance.

7.1.2.2.1 Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Validity

7.1.2.2.2 Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Naming

The subject MUST comply with the requirements of Section 7.1.4, or, if the existing CA Certificate was issued in compliance with the then-current version of the Baseline Requirements, the encoded subject name MUST be byte-for-byte identical to the encoded subject name of the existing CA Certificate.

Note: The above exception allows the CAs to issue Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificates, provided that the existing CA Certificate complied with the Baseline Requirements in force at time of issuance. This allows the requirements of Section 7.1.4 to be improved over time, while still permitting Cross-Certification. If the existing CA Certificate did not comply, issuing a Cross-Certificate is not permitted.

7.1.2.2.3 Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Extensions

In addition to the above, extKeyUsage extension requirements vary based on the relationship between the Issuer and Subject organizations represented in the Cross-Certificate.

The extKeyUsage extension MAY be “unrestricted” as described in the following table if: - the organizationName represented in the Issuer and Subject names of the corresponding certificate are either: - the same, or - the organizationName represented in the Subject name is an affiliate of the organizationName represented in the Issuer name - the corresponding CA represented by the Subject of the Cross-Certificate is operated by the same organization as the Issuing CA or an Affiliate of the Issuing CA organization.

In all other cases, the extKeyUsage extension MUST be “restricted” as described in the following table:

7.1.2.2.4 Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Extended Key Usage - Unrestricted

Alternatively, if the Issuing CA does not use this form, then the Extended Key Usage extension, if present, MUST be encoded as specified in Section 7.1.2.2.5.

7.1.2.2.5 Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Extended Key Usage - Restricted

Each included Extended Key Usage key usage purpose:

1. MUST apply in the context of the public Internet (e.g. MUST NOT be for a service that is only valid in a privately managed network), unless:
   1. the key usage purpose falls within an OID arc for which the Applicant demonstrates ownership; or,
   2. the Applicant can otherwise demonstrate the right to assert the key usage purpose in a public context.
2. MUST NOT include semantics that will mislead the Relying Party about the certificate information verified by the CA, such as including a key usage purpose asserting storage on a smart card, where the CA is not able to verify that the corresponding Private Key is confined to such hardware due to remote issuance.
3. MUST be verified by the Issuing CA (i.e. the Issuing CA MUST verify the Cross-Certified Subordinate CA is authorized to assert the key usage purpose).

CAs MUST NOT include additional key usage purposes unless the CA is aware of a reason for including the key usage purpose in the Certificate.

7.1.2.2.6 Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate Certificate Policies

The Certificate Policies extension MUST contain at least one PolicyInformation. Each PolicyInformation MUST match the following profile:

This Profile RECOMMENDS that the first PolicyInformation value within the Certificate Policies extension contains the Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier (see 7.1.6.1)⁴. Regardless of the order of PolicyInformation values, the Certificate Policies extension MUST include at least one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier. If any Subscriber Certificates will chain up directly to the Certificate issued under this Certificate Profile, this Cross-Certified Subordinate CA Certificate MUST contain exactly one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier.

Note: policyQualifiers is NOT RECOMMENDED to be present in any Certificate issued under this Certificate Profile because this information increases the size of the Certificate without providing any value to a typical Relying Party, and the information may be obtained by other means when necessary.

If the policyQualifiers is permitted and present within a PolicyInformation field, it MUST be formatted as follows:

7.1.2.3 Technically Constrained Non-TLS Subordinate CA Certificate Profile

This Certificate Profile MAY be used when issuing a CA Certificate that will be considered Technically Constrained, and which will not be used to issue TLS certificates directly or transitively.

7.1.2.3.1 Technically Constrained Non-TLS Subordinate CA Extensions

7.1.2.3.2 Technically Constrained Non-TLS Subordinate CA Certificate Policies

If present, the Certificate Policies extension MUST be formatted as one of the two tables below:

7.1.2.3.3 Technically Constrained Non-TLS Subordinate CA Extended Key Usage

The Issuing CA MUST verify that the Subordinate CA Certificate is authorized to issue certificates for each included extended key usage purpose. Multiple, independent key purposes (e.g. id-kp-timeStamping and id-kp-codeSigning) are NOT RECOMMENDED.

7.1.2.4 Technically Constrained Precertificate Signing CA Certificate Profile

This Certificate Profile MUST be used when issuing a CA Certificate that will be used as a Precertificate Signing CA, as described in RFC 6962, Section 3.1. If a CA Certificate conforms to this profile, it is considered Technically Constrained.

A Precertificate Signing CA MUST only be used to sign Precertificates, as defined in Section 7.1.2.9. When a Precertificate Signing CA issues a Precertificate, it shall be interpreted as if the Issuing CA of the Precertificate Signing CA has issued a Certificate with a matching tbsCertificate of the Precertificate, after applying the modifications specified in RFC 6962, Section 3.2.

As noted in RFC 6962, Section 3.2, the signature field of a Precertificate is not altered as part of these modifications. As such, the Precertificate Signing CA MUST use the same signature algorithm as the Issuing CA when issuing Precertificates, and, correspondingly, MUST use a public key of the same public key algorithm as the Issuing CA, although MAY use a different CA Key Pair.

7.1.2.4.1 Technically Constrained Precertificate Signing CA Extensions

7.1.2.4.2 Technically Constrained Precertificate Signing CA Extended Key Usage

7.1.2.5 Technically Constrained TLS Subordinate CA Certificate Profile

This Certificate Profile MAY be used when issuing a CA Certificate that will be considered Technically Constrained, and which will be used to issue TLS certificates directly or transitively.

7.1.2.5.1 Technically Constrained TLS Subordinate CA Extensions

7.1.2.5.2 Technically Constrained TLS Subordinate CA Name Constraints

For a TLS Subordinate CA to be Technically Constrained, Name Constraints extension MUST be encoded as follows. As an explicit exception from RFC 5280, this extension SHOULD be marked critical, but MAY be marked non-critical if compatibility with certain legacy applications that do not support Name Constraints is necessary.

The following table contains the requirements for the GeneralName that appears within the base of a GeneralSubtree in either the permittedSubtrees or excludedSubtrees.

Any otherName, if present:

1. MUST apply in the context of the public Internet, unless:
   1. the type-id falls within an OID arc for which the Applicant demonstrates ownership, or,
   2. the Applicant can otherwise demonstrate the right to assert the data in a public context.
2. MUST NOT include semantics that will mislead the Relying Party about certificate information verified by the CA.
3. MUST be DER encoded according to the relevant ASN.1 module defining the otherName type-id and value.

CAs SHALL NOT include additional names unless the CA is aware of a reason for including the data in the Certificate.

7.1.2.6 TLS Subordinate CA Certificate Profile

7.1.2.6.1 TLS Subordinate CA Extensions

7.1.2.7 Subscriber (Server) Certificate Profile

7.1.2.7.1 Subscriber Certificate Types

There are four types of Subscriber Certificates that may be issued, which vary based on the amount of Subject Information that is included. Each of these certificate types shares a common profile, with three exceptions: the subject name fields that may occur, how those fields are validated, and the contents of the certificatePolicies extension.

Note: Although each Subscriber Certificate type varies in Subject Information, all Certificates provide the same level of assurance of the device identity (domain name and/or IP address).

7.1.2.7.2 Domain Validated

For a Subscriber Certificate to be Domain Validated, it MUST meet the following profile:

All subject names MUST be encoded as specified in Section 7.1.4.

The following table details the acceptable AttributeTypes that may appear within the type field of an AttributeTypeAndValue, as well as the contents permitted within the value field.

7.1.2.7.3 Individual Validated

For a Subscriber Certificate to be Individual Validated, it MUST meet the following profile:

All subject names MUST be encoded as specified in Section 7.1.4.

The following table details the acceptable AttributeTypes that may appear within the type field of an AttributeTypeAndValue, as well as the contents permitted within the value field.

In addition, subject Attributes MUST NOT contain only metadata such as ‘.’, ‘-’, and ’ ’ (i.e. space) characters, and/or any other indication that the value is absent, incomplete, or not applicable.

7.1.2.7.4 Organization Validated

For a Subscriber Certificate to be Organization Validated, it MUST meet the following profile:

All subject names MUST be encoded as specified in Section 7.1.4.

The following table details the acceptable AttributeTypes that may appear within the type field of an AttributeTypeAndValue, as well as the contents permitted within the value field.

In addition, subject Attributes MUST NOT contain only metadata such as ‘.’, ‘-’, and ’ ’ (i.e. space) characters, and/or any other indication that the value is absent, incomplete, or not applicable.

7.1.2.7.5 Extended Validation

For a Subscriber Certificate to be Extended Validation, it MUST comply with the Certificate Profile specified in the then-current version of the Guidelines for the Issuance and Management of Extended Validation Certificates. In addition, it MUST meet the following profile:

In addition, subject Attributes MUST NOT contain only metadata such as ‘.’, ‘-’, and ’ ’ (i.e. space) characters, and/or any other indication that the value is absent, incomplete, or not applicable.

7.1.2.7.6 Subscriber Certificate Extensions

Notes: - whether or not the subjectAltName extension should be marked Critical depends on the contents of the Certificate’s subject field, as detailed in Section 7.1.2.7.12. - whether or not the CRL Distribution Points extension must be present depends on 1) whether the Certificate includes an Authority Information Access extension with an id-ad-ocsp accessMethod and 2) the Certificate’s validity period, as detailed in Section 7.1.2.11.2.

7.1.2.7.7 Subscriber Certificate Authority Information Access

The AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax MUST contain one or more AccessDescriptions. Each AccessDescription MUST only contain a permitted accessMethod, as detailed below, and each accessLocation MUST be encoded as the specified GeneralName type.

The AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax MAY contain multiple AccessDescriptions with the same accessMethod, if permitted for that accessMethod. When multiple AccessDescriptions are present with the same accessMethod, each accessLocation MUST be unique, and each AccessDescription MUST be ordered in priority for that accessMethod, with the most-preferred accessLocation being the first AccessDescription. No ordering requirements are given for AccessDescriptions that contain different accessMethods, provided that previous requirement is satisfied.

7.1.2.7.8 Subscriber Certificate Basic Constraints

7.1.2.7.9 Subscriber Certificate Certificate Policies

If present, the Certificate Policies extension MUST contain at least one PolicyInformation. Each PolicyInformation MUST match the following profile:

This Profile RECOMMENDS that the first PolicyInformation value within the Certificate Policies extension contains the Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier (see 7.1.6.1)¹³. Regardless of the order of PolicyInformation values, the Certificate Policies extension MUST contain exactly one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier.

7.1.2.7.10 Subscriber Certificate Extended Key Usage

7.1.2.7.11 Subscriber Certificate Key Usage

The acceptable Key Usage values vary based on whether the Certificate’s subjectPublicKeyInfo identifies an RSA public key or an ECC public key. CAs MUST ensure the Key Usage is appropriate for the Certificate Public Key.

Note: At least one Key Usage MUST be set for RSA Public Keys. The digitalSignature bit is REQUIRED for use with modern protocols, such as TLS 1.3, and secure ciphersuites, while the keyEncipherment bit MAY be asserted to support older protocols, such as TLS 1.2, when using insecure ciphersuites. Subscribers MAY wish to ensure key separation to limit the risk from such legacy protocols, and thus a CA MAY issue a Subscriber certificate that only asserts the keyEncipherment bit. For most Subscribers, the digitalSignature bit is sufficient, while Subscribers that want to mix insecure and secure ciphersuites with the same algorithm may choose to assert both digitalSignature and keyEncipherment within the same certificate, although this is NOT RECOMMENDED. The dataEncipherment bit is currently permitted, although setting it is NOT RECOMMENDED, as it is a Pending Prohibition (https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/384).

Note: The keyAgreement bit is currently permitted, although setting it is NOT RECOMMENDED, as it is a Pending Prohibition (https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/issues/384).

7.1.2.7.12 Subscriber Certificate Subject Alternative Name

For Subscriber Certificates, the Subject Alternative Name MUST be present and MUST contain at least one dNSName or iPAddress GeneralName. See below for further requirements about the permitted fields and their validation requirements.

If the subject field of the certificate is an empty SEQUENCE, this extension MUST be marked critical, as specified in RFC 5280, Section 4.2.1.6. Otherwise, this extension MUST NOT be marked critical.

7.1.2.8 OCSP Responder Certificate Profile

If the Issuing CA does not directly sign OCSP responses, it MAY make use of an OCSP Authorized Responder, as defined by RFC 6960. The Issuing CA of the Responder MUST be the same as the Issuing CA for the Certificates it provides responses for.

7.1.2.8.1 OCSP Responder Validity

7.1.2.8.2 OCSP Responder Extensions

7.1.2.8.3 OCSP Responder Authority Information Access

For OCSP Responder certificates, this extension is NOT RECOMMENDED, as the Relying Party should already possess the necessary information. In order to validate the given Responder certificate, the Relying Party must have access to the Issuing CA’s certificate, eliminating the need to provide id-ad-caIssuers. Similarly, because of the requirement for an OCSP Responder certificate to include the id-pkix-ocsp-nocheck extension, it is not necessary to provide id-ad-ocsp, as such responses will not be checked by Relying Parties.

If present, the AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax MUST contain one or more AccessDescriptions. Each AccessDescription MUST only contain a permitted accessMethod, as detailed below, and each AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax MUST contain all required AccessDescriptions.

7.1.2.8.4 OCSP Responder Basic Constraints

OCSP Responder certificates MUST NOT be CA certificates. The issuing CA may indicate this one of two ways: by omission of the basicConstraints extension, or through the inclusion of a basicConstraints extension that sets the cA boolean to FALSE.

Note: Due to DER encoding rules regarding the encoding of DEFAULT values within OPTIONAL fields, a basicConstraints extension that sets the cA boolean to FALSE MUST have an extnValue OCTET STRING which is exactly the hex-encoded bytes 3000, the encoded representation of an empty ASN.1 SEQUENCE value.

7.1.2.8.5 OCSP Responder Extended Key Usage

7.1.2.8.6 OCSP Responder id-pkix-ocsp-nocheck

The CA MUST include the id-pkix-ocsp-nocheck extension (OID: 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.1.5).

This extension MUST have an extnValue OCTET STRING which is exactly the hex-encoded bytes 0500, the encoded representation of the ASN.1 NULL value, as specified in RFC 6960, Section 4.2.2.2.1.

7.1.2.8.7 OCSP Responder Key Usage

7.1.2.8.8 OCSP Responder Certificate Policies

If present, the Certificate Policies extension MUST contain at least one PolicyInformation. Each PolicyInformation MUST match the following profile:

Note: See Section 7.1.2.8.2 for applicable effective dates for when this extension may be included.

Note: Because the Certificate Policies extension may be used to restrict the applicable usages for a Certificate, incorrect policies may result in OCSP Responder Certificates that fail to successfully validate, resulting in invalid OCSP Responses. Including the anyPolicy policy can reduce this risk, but add to client processing complexity and interoperability issues.

7.1.2.9 Precertificate Profile

A Precertificate is a signed data structure that can be submitted to a Certificate Transparency log, as defined by RFC 6962. A Precertificate appears structurally identical to a Certificate, with the exception of a special critical poison extension in the extensions field, with the OID of 1.3.6.1.4.1.11129.2.4.3. This extension ensures that the Precertificate will not be accepted as a Certificate by clients conforming to RFC 5280. The existence of a signed Precertificate can be treated as evidence of a corresponding Certificate also existing, as the signature represents a binding commitment by the CA that it may issue such a Certificate.

A Precertificate is created after a CA has decided to issue a Certificate, but prior to the actual signing of the Certificate. The CA MAY construct and sign a Precertificate corresponding to the Certificate, for purposes of submitting to Certificate Transparency Logs. The CA MAY use the returned Signed Certificate Timestamps to then alter the Certificate’s extensions field, adding a Signed Certificate Timestamp List, as defined in Section 7.1.2.11.3 and as permitted by the relevant profile, prior to signing the Certificate.

Once a Precertificate is signed, relying parties are permitted to treat this as a binding commitment from the CA of the intent to issue a corresponding Certificate, or more commonly, that a corresponding Certificate exists. A Certificate is said to be corresponding to a Precertificate based upon the value of the tbsCertificate contents, as transformed by the process defined in RFC 6962, Section 3.2.

This profile describes the transformations that are permitted to a Certificate to construct a Precertificate. CAs MUST NOT issue a Precertificate unless they are willing to issue a corresponding Certificate, regardless of whether they have done so. Similarly, a CA MUST NOT issue a Precertificate unless the corresponding Certificate conforms to these Baseline Requirements, regardless of whether the CA signs the corresponding Certificate.

A Precertificate may be issued either directly by the Issuing CA or by a Technically Constrained Precertificate Signing CA, as defined in Section 7.1.2.4. If issued by a Precertificate Signing CA, then in addition to the precertificate poison and signed certificate timestamp list extensions, the Precertificate issuer field and, if present, authorityKeyIdentifier extension, may differ from the Certificate, as described below.

Note: This profile requires that the serialNumber field of the Precertificate be identical to that of the corresponding Certificate. RFC 5280, Section 4.1.2.2 requires that the serialNumber of certificates be unique. For the purposes of this document, a Precertificate shall not be considered a “certificate” subject to that requirement, and thus may have the same serialNumber of the corresponding Certificate. However, this does not permit two Precertificates to share the same serialNumber, unless they correspond to the same Certificate, as this would otherwise indicate there are two corresponding Certificates that share the same serialNumber.

7.1.2.9.1 Precertificate Profile Extensions - Directly Issued

These extensions apply in the context of a Precertificate directly issued from a CA, and not from a Precertificate Signing CA Certificate, as defined in Section 7.1.2.4.

Note: This requirement is expressing that if the Precertificate Poison extension is removed from the Precertificate, and the Signed Certificate Timestamp List is removed from the certificate, the contents of the extensions field MUST be byte-for-byte identical to the Certificate.

7.1.2.9.2 Precertificate Profile Extensions - Precertificate CA Issued

These extensions apply in the context of a Precertificate from a Precertificate Signing CA Certificate, as defined in Section 7.1.2.4. For such Precertificates, the authorityKeyIdentifier, if present in the Certificate, is modified in the Precertificate, as described in RFC 6962, Section 3.2.

7.1.2.9.3 Precertificate Poison

The Precertificate MUST contain the Precertificate Poison extension (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.11129.2.4.3).

This extension MUST have an extnValue OCTET STRING which is exactly the hex-encoded bytes 0500, the encoded representation of the ASN.1 NULL value, as specified in RFC 6962, Section 3.1.

7.1.2.9.4 Precertificate Authority Key Identifier

For Precertificates issued by a Precertificate Signing CA, the contents of the authorityKeyIdentifier extension MUST be one of the following:

1. SHOULD be as defined in the profile below, or;
2. MAY be byte-for-byte identical with the contents of the authorityKeyIdentifier extension of the corresponding Certificate.

Note: RFC 6962 describes how the authorityKeyIdentifier present on a Precertificate is transformed to contain the value of the Precertificate Signing CA’s authorityKeyIdentifier extension (i.e. reflecting the actual issuer certificate’s keyIdentifier), thus matching the corresponding Certificate when verified by clients. These Baseline Requirements RECOMMEND the use of the Precertificate Signing CA’s keyIdentifier in Precertificates issued by it in order to ensure consistency between the subjectKeyIdentifier and authorityKeyIdentifier of all certificates in the chain. Although RFC 5280 does not strictly require such consistency, a number of client implementations enforce such consistency for Certificates, and this avoids any risks from Certificate Transparency Logs incorrectly implementing such checks.

7.1.2.10 Common CA Fields

This section contains several fields that are common among multiple CA Certificate profiles. However, these fields may not be common among all CA Certificate profiles. Before issuing a certificate, the CA MUST ensure the certificate contents, including the contents of each field, complies in whole with all of the requirements of at least one Certificate Profile documented in Section 7.1.2.

7.1.2.10.1 CA Certificate Validity

7.1.2.10.2 CA Certificate Naming

All subject names MUST be encoded as specified in Section 7.1.4.

The following table details the acceptable AttributeTypes that may appear within the type field of an AttributeTypeAndValue, as well as the contents permitted within the value field.

7.1.2.10.3 CA Certificate Authority Information Access

If present, the AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax MUST contain one or more AccessDescriptions. Each AccessDescription MUST only contain a permitted accessMethod, as detailed below, and each accessLocation MUST be encoded as the specified GeneralName type.

The AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax MAY contain multiple AccessDescriptions with the same accessMethod, if permitted for that accessMethod. When multiple AccessDescriptions are present with the same accessMethod, each accessLocation MUST be unique, and each AccessDescription MUST be ordered in priority for that accessMethod, with the most-preferred accessLocation being the first AccessDescription. No ordering requirements are given for AccessDescriptions that contain different accessMethods, provided that previous requirement is satisfied.

7.1.2.10.4 CA Certificate Basic Constraints

7.1.2.10.5 CA Certificate Certificate Policies

If present, the Certificate Policies extension MUST contain at least one PolicyInformation. Each PolicyInformation MUST match the following profile:

This Profile RECOMMENDS that the first PolicyInformation value within the Certificate Policies extension contains the Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier (see 7.1.6.1)¹⁴. Regardless of the order of PolicyInformation values, the Certificate Policies extension MUST contain exactly one Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier.

Note: policyQualifiers is NOT RECOMMENDED to be present in any Certificate issued under this Certificate Profile because this information increases the size of the Certificate without providing any value to a typical Relying Party, and the information may be obtained by other means when necessary.

If the policyQualifiers is permitted and present within a PolicyInformation field, it MUST be formatted as follows:

7.1.2.10.6 CA Certificate Extended Key Usage

7.1.2.10.7 CA Certificate Key Usage

7.1.2.10.8 CA Certificate Name Constraints

If present, the Name Constraints extension MUST be encoded as follows. As an explicit exception from RFC 5280, this extension SHOULD be marked critical, but MAY be marked non-critical if compatibility with certain legacy applications that do not support Name Constraints is necessary.

The following table contains the requirements for the GeneralName that appears within the base of a GeneralSubtree in either the permittedSubtrees or excludedSubtrees.

Any otherName, if present:

1. MUST apply in the context of the public Internet, unless:
   1. the type-id falls within an OID arc for which the Applicant demonstrates ownership, or,
   2. the Applicant can otherwise demonstrate the right to assert the data in a public context.
2. MUST NOT include semantics that will mislead the Relying Party about certificate information verified by the CA.
3. MUST be DER encoded according to the relevant ASN.1 module defining the otherName type-id and value.

CAs SHALL NOT include additional names unless the CA is aware of a reason for including the data in the Certificate.

7.1.2.11 Common Certificate Fields

This section contains several fields that are common among multiple certificate profiles. However, these fields may not be common among all certificate profiles. Before issuing a certificate, the CA MUST ensure the certificate contents, including the contents of each field, complies in whole with all of the requirements of at least one Certificate Profile documented in Section 7.1.2.

7.1.2.11.1 Authority Key Identifier

7.1.2.11.2 CRL Distribution Points

The CRL Distribution Points extension MUST be present in:

• Subordinate CA Certificates; and
• Subscriber Certificates that 1) do not qualify as “Short-lived Subscriber Certificates” and 2) do not include an Authority Information Access extension with an id-ad-ocsp accessMethod.

The CRL Distribution Points extension SHOULD NOT be present in:

• Root CA Certificates.

The CRL Distribution Points extension is OPTIONAL in:

• Short-lived Subscriber Certificates.

The CRL Distribution Points extension MUST NOT be present in:

• OCSP Responder Certificates.

When present, the CRL Distribution Points extension MUST contain at least one DistributionPoint; containing more than one is NOT RECOMMENDED. All DistributionPoint items must be formatted as follows:

A fullName MUST contain at least one GeneralName; it MAY contain more than one. All GeneralNames MUST be of type uniformResourceIdentifier, and the scheme of each MUST be “http”. The first GeneralName must contain the HTTP URL of the Issuing CA’s CRL service for this certificate.