CAcert CPS and CP

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Overview

This document is the Certification Practice Statement (CPS) of CAcert, the Community Certification Authority (CA). It describes rules and procedures used by CAcert for operating its CA, and applies to all CAcert PKI Participants, including Assurers, Members, and CAcert itself.

1.2. Document name and identification

This document is the Certification Practice Statement (CPS) of CAcert. The CPS also fulfills the role of the Certificate Policy (CP) for each class of certificate.

• This document is COD6 under CAcert Official Documents numbering scheme.
• The document is structured according to Chokhani, et al, RFC3647, chapter 4. All headings derive from that Chapter.
• It has been improved and reviewed (or will be reviewed) to meet or exceed the criteria of the Certificate Authority Review Checklist from David E. Ross ("DRC") and Mozilla Foundation's CA policy.
• OID assigned to this document: 1.3.6.1.4.1.18506.4.4.x (x=approved Version) (iana.org)

  .x will change to .1 in the first approved instance.

• © CAcert Inc. 2006-2009.
• Issued under the CAcert document licence policy, as and when made policy. See PolicyDrafts/DocumentLicence.
  • The cited page discusses 2 options: CCau Attribute-Share-alike and GNU Free Document License. Refer to that.
  • Note that the noun Licence in Australian English has two Cs. The verb License is spelt the same way as American English.
• Earlier notes were written by Christian Barmala in a document placed under GNU Free Document License and under FSF copyright. However this clashed with the control provisions of Configuration-Control Specification (COD2) within Audit criteria.
• In this document:
  • green text refers to questions that seek answers,
  • red text refers to probably audit fails or serious errors.
  • blue text refers to changes written after the document got seriously reviewed.
  None is to be considered part of the policy, and they should disappear in the DRAFT and must disappear in the POLICY.
198 177 515 -->

The CPS is an authoritive document, and rules other documents except where explicitly deferred to. See also 1.5.1 Organisation Administering the Document.

1.3. PKI participants

The CA is legally operated by CAcert Incorporated, an Association registered in 2002 in New South Wales, Australia, on behalf of the wider Community of Members of CAcert. The Association details are at the CAcert wiki.

CAcert is a Community formed of Members who agree to the CAcert Community Agreement. The CA is technically operated by the Community, under the direction of the Board of CAcert Incorporated. (The Members of the Community are not to be confused with the Association Members, which latter are not referred to anywhere in this CPS.)

1.3.1. Certification authorities

CAcert does not issue certificates to external intermediate CAs under the present CPS.

1.3.2. Registration authorities

Registration Authorities (RAs) are controlled under Assurance Policy (COD13).

1.3.3. Subscribers

CAcert issues certificates to Members only. Such Members then become Subscribers.

1.3.4. Relying parties

A relying party is a Member, having agreed to the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9), who, in the act of using a CAcert certificate, makes a decision on the basis of that certificate.

1.3.5. Other participants

Member. Membership of the Community is as defined in the COD9. Only Members may RELY or may become Subscribers. Membership is free.

Arbitrator. A senior and experienced Member of the CAcert Community who resolves disputes between Members, including ones of certificate reliance, under Dispute Resolution Policy (COD7).

Vendor. Software suppliers who integrate the root certificates of CAcert into their software also assume a proxy role of Relying Parties, and are subject to another licence. At the time of writing, the "3rd Party Vendor - Disclaimer and Licence" is being worked upon, but is neither approved nor offered.

Non-Related Persons (NRPs). These are users of browsers and similar software who are unaware of the CAcert certificates they may use, and are unaware of the ramifications of usage. Their relationship with CAcert is described by the Non-related Persons - Disclaimer and Licence (COD4). No other rights nor relationship is implied or offered.

1.4. Certificate usage

CAcert serves as issuer of certificates for individuals, businesses, governments, charities, associations, churches, schools, non-governmental organisations or other groups. CAcert certificates are intended for low-cost community applications especially where volunteers can become Assurers and help CAcert to help the Community.

Types of certificates and their appropriate and corresponding applications are defined in §1.4.1. Prohibited applications are defined in §1.4.2. Specialist uses may be agreed by contract or within a specific environment, as described in §1.4.4. Note also the unreliable applications in §1.4.3 and risks, liabilities and obligations in §9.

1.4.1. Appropriate certificate uses

General uses.

• CAcert server certificates can be used to enable encryption protection in web servers. Suitable applications include webmail and chat forums.
• CAcert server certificates can be used to enable encryption in SSL/TLS links in embedded protocols such as mail servers and IM-servers.
• CAcert client certificates can be used to enable encryption protection in email clients. (See §1.4.3 for caveat on signatures.)
• CAcert client certificates can be used to replace password-based authentication to web servers.
• OpenPGP keys with CAcert signatures can be used to encrypt and sign files and emails, using software compatible with OpenPGP.
• CAcert client certificates can be used in web-based authentication applications.
• CAcert code signing certificates can be used to sign code for distribution to other people.
• Time stamping can be used to attach a time record to a digital document.

1.4.2. Prohibited certificate uses

CAcert certificates are not designed, intended, or authorised for the following applications:

• Use or resale as control equipment in hazardous circumstances or for uses requiring fail-safe performance such as the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control systems, or weapons control systems, where failure could lead directly to death, personal injury, or severe environmental damage.

1.4.3. Unreliable Applications

CAcert certificates are not designed nor intended for use in the following applications, and may not be reliable enough for these applications:

• Signing within Protocols. Digital signatures made by CAcert certificates carry NO default legal or human meaning. See §9.15.1. Especially, protocols such as S/MIME commonly will automatically apply digital signatures as part of their protocol needs. The purpose of the cryptographic signature in S/MIME and similar protocols is limited by default to strictly protocol security purposes: to provide some confirmation that a familiar certificate is in use, to enable encryption, and to ensure the integrity of the email in transit.
• Non-repudiation applications. Non-repudiation is not to be implied from use of CAcert certificates. Rather, certificates may provide support or evidence of actions, but that evidence is testable in any dispute.
• Ecommerce applications. Financial transactions or payments or valuable e-commerce.
• Use of anonymous (Class 1 or Member SubRoot) certificates in any application that requires or expects identity.

1.4.4. Limited certificate uses

By contract or within a specific environment (e.g. internal to a company), CAcert Members are permitted to use Certificates for higher security, customised or experimental applications. Any such usage, however, is limited to such entities and these entities take on the whole responsible for any harm or liability caused by such usage.

Digital signing applications. CAcert client certificates may be used by Assured Members in applications that provide or support the human signing of documents (known here as "digital signing"). This must be part of a wider framework and set of rules. Usage and reliance must be documented either under a separate CAcert digital signing policy or other external regime agreed by the parties.

1.4.5. Roots and Names

Named Certificates. Assured Members may be issued certificates with their verified names in the certificate. In this role, CAcert operates and supports a network of Assurers who verify the identity of the Members. All Names are verified, either by Assurance or another defined method under policy (c.f. Organisations).

Anonymous Certificates. Members can be issued certificates that are anonymous, which is defined as the certificate with no Name included, or a shared name such as "Community Member". These may be considered to be somewhere between Named certificates and self-signed certificates. They have serial numbers in them which is ultimately traceable via dispute to a Member, but reliance is undefined. In this role, CAcert provides the infrastructure, saving the Members from managing a difficult and messy process in order to get manufactured certificates.

Psuedonymous Certificates. Note that CAcert does not currently issue pseudonymous certificates, being those with a name chosen by the Member and not verifiable according to documents.

Advanced Certificates. Members who are as yet unassured are not permitted to create advanced forms such as wildcard or subjectAltName certificates.

Roots. The (new) CAcert root layout is as below. These roots are pending Audit, and will be submitted to vendors via the (Top-level) Root.

• (Top-level) Root. Used to sign on-line CAcert SubRoots only. This Root is kept offline.
• Member SubRoot. For Community Members who are new and unassured (some restrictions exist). Reliance is undefined. (Replacement for the Class 1 root, matches "Domain Validation" type.)
• Assured SubRoot. Only available for Assured individual Members, intended to sign certificates with Names. Suitable for Reliance under this and other policies. Approximates the type known as Individual Validation.
• Organisation SubRoot. Only available for Assured Organisation Members. Suitable for Reliance under this and other policies. Approximates the type known as Organisational Validation.

Following information on OLD roots here for descriptive and historical purposes only. When CPS goes to DRAFT, this needs to be converted into a short summary of the way OLD roots are used and its relationship to this CPS. E.g., "OLD roots are used for testing and other purposes outside this CPS." Because ... they still exist, and people will look at the CPS to figure it out.

Old Roots. The old CAcert root layout is as below. These roots are Audit Fail and will only be used where new roots do not serve:

• (old) Class 1 root. Used primarily for certificates with no names and by unassured Members. For compatibility only, Assured Members may also use this root.
• (old) Class 3 root. Used primarily for certificates including the names of Assured Members. Signed by Class 1 root. Members can decide to rely on these certificates for Assured Members by selecting the Class 3 root for Assured Members as trust anchor.

• Current Mozilla position has drifted from Class 1,2,3s to DV, IV+OV and EV posture. Except, the actual posture is either unstated or difficult to fathom.
• scheme for future roots is at NewRootsTaskForce.
• END OLD ROOTS

1.5. Policy administration

See 1.2 Document Name and Identification for general scope of this document.

1.5.1. Organization administering the document

This document is administered by the policy group of the CAcert Community under Policy on Policy (COD1).

1.5.2. Contact person

For questions including about this document:

• Join the policy group, by means of the discussion forum at lists.cacert.org .
• Send email to < support AT cacert DOT org >
• IRC: irc.cacert.org #CAcert (ssl port 7000, non-ssl port 6667)

1.5.3. Person determining CPS suitability for the policy

This CPS and all other policy documents are managed by the policy group, which is a group of Members of the Community found at policy forum. See discussion forums above.

1.5.4. CPS approval procedures

CPS is controlled and updated according to the Policy on Policy (COD1) which is part of Configuration-Control Specification (COD2).

In brief, the policy forum prepares and discusses. After a last call, the document moves to DRAFT status for a defined period. If no challenges have been received in the defined period, it moves to POLICY status. The process is modelled after some elements of the RFC process by the IETF.

1.5.5 CPS updates

As per above.

1.6. Definitions and acronyms

Certificate. A certificate is a piece of cryptographic data used to validate certain statements, especially those of identity and membership.

CAcert. CAcert is a Community certificate authority as defined under §1.2 Identification.

Member. Everyone who agrees to the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9). This generally implies having an account registered at CAcert and making use of CAcert's data, programs or services. A Member may be an individual ("natural person") or an organisation (sometimes, "legal person").

Community. The group of Members who agree to the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9) or equivalent agreements.

Unassured Member. A Member who has not yet been Assured.

Subscriber. A Member who requests and receives a certificate.

Assured Member. A Member whose identity has been sufficiently verified by Assurers or other approved methods under Assurance Policy.

Assurer. An Assured Member who is authorised under Assurance Policy to verify the identity of other Members.

Name. As defined in the Assurance Policy (COD13), to describe a name of a Member that is verified by the Assurance process.

Organisation Administrator. ("O-Admin") An Assurer who is authorised to act for an Organisation. The O-Admin is authorised by an organisation to vouch for the identity of other users of the organisation.

Organisation Assurer. An Assurer who is authorised to conduct assurances on organisations.

Non-Related Persons. ("NRPs") are general users of browsers and similar software. The NRPs are generally unaware of CAcert or the certificates that they may use, and are unaware of the ramifications of usage. They are not permitted to RELY, but may USE, under the Non-Related Persons - Disclaimer and Licence (COD4).

Reliance. An industry term referring to the act of making a decision, including taking a risk, which decision is in part or in whole informed or on the basis of the contents of a certificate.

Relying Party. An industry term refering to someone who relies (that is, makes decisions or takes risks) in part or in whole on a certificate.

Subscriber Naming. The term used in this CPS to describe all naming data within a certificate. Approximately similar terms from Industry such as "Subject naming" and "Distinguished Name" are not used here.

Verification. An industry term referring to the act of checking and controlling the accuracy and utility of a single claim.

Validation. An industry term referring to the process of inspecting and verifying the information and subsidiary claims behind a claim.

Usage. The event of allowing a certificate to participate in a protocol, as decided and facilitated by a user's software. Generally, Usage does not require significant input, if any, on the part of the user. This defers all decisions to the user software, thus elevating the software as user's only and complete Validation Authority or Agent.

CAcert Relying Party. CAcert Members who make decisions based in part or in whole on a certificate issued by CAcert. Only CAcert Members are permitted to Rely on CAcert certificates, subject to the CAcert Community Agreement.

Vendors. Non-members who distribute CAcert's root or intermediate certificates in any way, including but not limited to delivering these certificates with their products, e.g. browsers, mailers or servers. Vendors are covered under a separate licence. As of the moment, this licence is not written.

Configuration-Control Specification "CCS". The audit criteria that controls this CPS. The CCS is documented in COD2, itself a controlled document under CCS.

CAcert Official Document (COD). Controlled Documents that are part of the CCS.

2. PUBLICATION AND REPOSITORY RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1. Repositories

CAcert operates no repositories in the sense of lookup for non-certificate-related information for the general public.

Under the Assurance Policy (COD13), there are means for Members to search, retrieve and verify certain data about themselves and others.

2.2. Publication of certification information

CAcert publishes:

• A repository of CRLs. An OCSP responder is in operation.
• The root certificate and intermediate certificates.

CAcert does not expressly publish information on issued certificates. However, due to the purpose of certificates, and the essential public nature of Names and email addresses, all information within certificates is presumed to be public and published, once issued and delivered to the Member.

2.3. Time or frequency of publication

Root and Intermediate Certificates and CRLs are made available on issuance.

2.4. Access controls on repositories

No stipulation.

3. IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION

3.1. Naming

3.1.1. Types of names

Client Certificates. The Subscriber Naming consists of:

• subjectAltName= One, or more, of the Subscriber's verified email addresses, in rfc822Name format.
  • SSO in subjectAltName?.
• EmailAddress= One, or more, of the Subscriber's verified email addresses. This is deprecated under RFC5280 4 .1.2.6 and is to be phased out. Also includes a SHA1 hash of a random number if the member selects SSO (Single Sign On ID) during submission of CSR.
• CN= The common name takes its value from one of:
  • For all Members, the string "CAcert WoT Member" may be used for anonymous certificates.
  • For individual Members, a Name of the Subscriber, as Assured under AP.
  • For Organisation Members, an organisation-chosen name, as verified under OAP.

• bug 672 filed on subjectAltName.
• O-Admin must verify as per p20081016.
• it is a wip for OAP to state how this is done.
• curiously, (RFC5280) verification is only mandated for subjectAltName not subject field.
• what Directory String is used in above? UTF8String is specified by RFC52804.1.2.6? is this important for the CPS to state?

Individual Server Certificates. The Subscriber Naming consists of:

• CN= The common name is the host name out of a domain for which the Member is a domain master.
• subjectAltName= Additional host names for which the Member is a domain master may be added to permit the certificate to serve multiple domains on one IP number.
• All other fields are optional and must either match the CN or they must be empty

Certificates for Organisations. In addition to the above, the following applies:

• OU= organizationalUnitName (set by O-Admin, must be verified by O-Admin).
• O= organizationName is the fixed name of the Organisation.
• L= localityName
• ST= stateOrProvinceName
• C= countryName
• contact= EMail Address of Contact.

Except for the OU and CN, fields are taken from the Member's account and are as verified by the Organisation Assurance process. Other Subscriber information that is collected and/or retained does not go into the certificate.

3.1.2. Need for names to be meaningful

Each Member's Name (CN= field) is assured under the Assurance Policy (COD13) or subsidiary policies (such as Organisation Assurance Policy). Refer to those documents for meanings and variations.

Anonymous certificates have the same subject field common name. See §1.4.5..

Email addresses are verified according to §4.2.2.

3.1.3. Anonymity or pseudonymity of subscribers

See §1.4.5.

3.1.4. Rules for interpreting various name forms

Interpretation of Names is controlled by the Assurance Policy, is administered by means of the Member's account, and is subject to change by the Arbitrator. Changes to the interpretation by means of Arbitration should be expected as fraud (e.g., phishing) may move too quickly for policies to fully document rules.

3.1.5. Uniqueness of names

Uniqueness of Names within certificates is not guaranteed. Each certificate has a unique serial number which maps to a unique account, and thus maps to a unique Member. See the Assurance Statement within Assurance Policy (COD13).

Domain names and email address can only be registered to one Member.

3.1.6. Recognition, authentication, and role of trademarks

Organisation Assurance Policy (COD11) controls issues such as trademarks where applicable. A trademark can be disputed by filing a dispute. See §9.13.

3.1.7. International Domain Names

Certificates containing International Domain Names, being those containing a ACE prefix (RFC3490 Section 5), will only be issued to domains satisfying one or more of the following conditions:

• The Top Level Domain (TLD) Registrar associated with the domain has a policy that has taken measures to prevent two homographic domains being registered to different entities down to an accepted level.
• Domains contain only code points from a single unicode character script, excluding the "Common" script, with the additionally allowed numberic characters [0-9], and an ACSII hyphen '-'.

Email address containing International Domain Names in the domain portion of the email address will also be required to satisfy one of the above conditions.

The following is a list of accepted TLD Registrars:

.ac	Registry	Policy
.ar	Registry	Policy
.at	Registry	Policy (character list)
.biz	Registry	Policy
.br	Registry	Policy
.cat	Registry	Policy
.ch	Registry	Policy
.cl	Registry	Policy
.cn	Registry	Policy (JET Guidelines)
.de	Registry	Policy
.dk	Registry	Policy
.es	Registry	Policy
.fi	Registry	Policy
.gr	Registry	Policy
.hu	Registry	Policy (section 2.1.2)
.info	Registry	Policy
.io	Registry	Policy
.ir	Registry	Policy
.is	Registry	Policy
.jp	Registry	Policy
.kr	Registry	Policy (JET Guidelines)
.li	Registry	Policy (managed by .ch registry)
.lt	Registry	Policy (character list)
.museum	Registry	Policy
.no	Registry	Policy (section 4)
.org	Registry	Policy
.pl	Registry	Policy
.pr	Registry	Policy
.se	Registry	Policy (character list)
.sh	Registry	Policy
.th	Registry	Policy
.tm	Registry	Policy
.tw	Registry	Policy (JET Guidelines)
.vn	Registry	Policy (character list)

This criteria will apply to the email address and server host name fields for all certificate types.

The CAcert Inc. Board has the authority to decide to add or remove accepted TLD Registrars on this list.

3.2. Initial Identity Verification

Identity verification is controlled by the Assurance Policy (COD13). The reader is refered to the Assurance Policy, the following is representative and brief only.

3.2.1. Method to prove possession of private key

CAcert uses industry-standard techniques to prove the possession of the private key.

For X.509 server certificates, the stale digital signature of the CSR is verified. For X.509 client certificates for "Netscape" browsers, SPKAC uses a challenge-response protocol to check the private key dynamically. For X.509 client certificates for "explorer" browsers, ActiveX uses a challenge-response protocol to check the private key dynamically.

3.2.2. Authentication of Individual Identity

Agreement. An Internet user becomes a Member by agreeing to the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9) and registering an account on the online website. During the registration process Members are asked to supply information about themselves:

• A valid working email.
• Full Name and Date of Birth such as is found on Identity documents.
• Personal Questions used only for Password Retrieval.

The online account establishes the method of authentication for all service requests such as certificates.

Assurance. Each Member is assured according to Assurance Policy (COD13).

Certificates. Based on the total number of Assurance Points that a Member (Name) has, the Member can get different levels of certificates. See §1.4.5. See Table 3.2.b. When Members have 50 or more points, they become Assured Members and may then request certificates that state their Assured Name(s).

3.2.3. Authentication of organization identity

Verification of organisations is delegated by the Assurance Policy to the Organisation Assurance Policy (COD11). The reader is refered to the Organisation Assurance Policy, the following is representative and brief only.

Organisations present special challenges. The Assurance process for Organisations is intended to permit the organisational Name to appear in certificates. The process relies heavily on the Individual process described above.

Organisation Assurance achieves the standard stated in the OAP, briefly presented here:

1. the organisation exists,
2. the organisation name is correct and consistent,
3. signing rights: requestor can sign on behalf of the organisation, and
4. the organisation has agreed to the terms of the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9), and is therefore subject to Arbitration.

• As of the current time of writing, OA lacks critical documentation and there are bugs identified with no response.
• documented bugs.
• Therefore Organisations will not participate in the current audit cycle of roots.
• See wiki for any progress on this.

3.2.4. Non-verified subscriber information

All information in the certificate is verified, see Relying Party Statement, §4.5.2.

3.2.5. Validation of authority

The authorisation to obtain a certificate is established as follows:

Addresses. The member claims authority over a domain or email address when adding the address, §4.1.2. (Control is tested by means described in §4.2.2.)

Individuals. The authority to participate as a Member is established by the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9). Assurances are requested by means of the signed CAP form.

Organisations. The authority for Organisation Assurance is established in the COAP form, as signed by an authorised representative of the organisation. The authority for the Organisation Administrator (O-Admin) is also established on the COAP form. See Organisation Assurance Policy.

3.2.6. Criteria for interoperation

CAcert does not currently issue certificates to subordinate CAs or other PKIs. Other CAs may become Members, and are then subject to the same reliance provisions as all Members.

3.3. Re-key Requests

Via the Member's account.

3.4. Revocations Requests

Via the Member's account. In the event that the Member has lost the password, or similar, the Member emails the support team who either work through the lost-password questions process or file a dispute.

4. CERTIFICATE LIFE-CYCLE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The general life-cycle for a new certificate for an Individual Member is:

1. Member adds claim to an address (domain/email).
2. System probes address for control.
3. Member creates key pair.
4. Member submits CSR with desired options (Anonymous Certificate, SSO, Root Certificate) .
5. System validates and accepts CSR based on known information: claims, assurance, controls, technicalities.
6. System signs certificate.
7. System makes signed certificate available to Member.
8. Member accepts certificate.

(Some steps are not applicable, such as anonymous certificates.)

4.1. Certificate Application

4.1.1. Who can submit a certificate application

Members may submit certificate applications. On issuance of certificates, Members become Subscribers.

4.1.2. Adding Addresses

The Member can claim ownership or authorised control of a domain or email address on the online system. This is a necessary step towards issuing a certificate. There are these controls:

• The claim of ownership or control is legally significant and may be referred to dispute resolution.
• Each unique address can be handled by one account only.
• When the Member makes the claim, the certificate application system automatically initiates the check of control, as below.

4.1.3. Preparing CSR

Members generate their own key-pairs. The CAcert Community Agreement (COD9) obliges the Member as responsible for security. See CCA2.5, §9.6.

The Certificate Signing Request (CSR) is prepared by the Member for presentation to the automated system.

4.2. Certificate application processing

The CA's certificate application process is completely automated. Requests, approvals and rejections are handled by the website system. Each application should be processed in less than a minute.

Where certificates are requested for more than one purpose, the requirements for each purpose must be fulfilled.

4.2.1. Authentication

The Member logs in to her account on the CAcert website and thereby authenticates herself with username and passphrase or with her CAcert client-side digital certificate.

4.2.2. Verifying Control

In principle, at least two controls are placed on each address.

Email-Ping. Email addresses are verified by means of an Email-Ping test:

• The system generates a cookie (a random, hard-to-guess code) and formats it as a string.
• The system sends the cookie to the Member in an email.
• Once the Member receives the email, she enters the cookie into the website.
• The entry of the code verifies control of that email account.

Email Control. Email addresses for client certificates are verified by passing the following checks:

1. An Email-ping test is done on the email address.
2. The Member must have signed a CAP form or equivalent, and been awarded at least one Assurance point.

Domain Control. Domains addresses for server certificates are verified by passing two of the following checks:

1. An Email-ping test is done on an email address chosen from whois or interpolated from the domain name.
2. The system generates a cookie which is then placed in DNS by the Member.
3. The system generates a cookie which is then placed in HTTP headers or a text file on the website by the Member.
4. Statement by at least 2 Assurers about ownership/control of the domain name.
5. The system generates a cookie which is then placed in whois registry information by the Member.

Notes.

• Other methods can be added from time to time by CAcert.
• Static cookies should remain for the duration of a certificate for occasional re-testing.
• Dynamic tests can be repeated at a later time of CAcert's choosing.
• Domain control checks may be extended to apply to email control in the future.

• As of the time of writing, only a singular Email-ping is implemented in the technical system.
• A further approved check is the 1 pt Assurance.
• Practically, this would mean that certificates can only be issued under Audit Roots to Members with 1 point.
• Criteria DRC C.7.f, A.2.q, A.2.i indicate registry whois reading. Also A.2.h.
• Current view is that this will be resolved in BirdShack.

4.2.3. Options Available

The Member has options available:

• Each Email address that is verified is available for Client Certificates.
• Each Domain address that is verified is available for Server Certificates.
• If the Member is unassured then only the Member SubRoot is available.
• If the Member is Assured then both Assured Member and Member SubRoots are available.
• If a Name is Assured then it may be put in a client certificate or an OpenPGP signature.

4.2.4. Client Certificate Procedures

For an individual client certificate, the following is required.

• The email address is claimed and added.
• The email address is ping-tested.
• For the Member Subroot, the Member must have at least one point of Assurance and have signed a CAP form.
• For the Assured Subroot, the Member must have at least fifty points of Assurance.
• To include a Name, the Name must be assured to at least fifty points.

4.2.5. Server Certificate Procedures

For a server certificate, the following is required:

• The domain is claimed and added.
• The domain is checked twice as above.
• For the Member SubRoot, the Member must have at least one point of Assurance and have signed a CAP form.
• For the Assured SubRoot, the Member must have at least fifty points of Assurance.

4.2.6. Code-signing Certificate Procedures

Code-signing certificates are made available to Assurers only. They are processed in a similar manner to client certificates.

4.2.7. Organisation Domain Verification

Organisation Domains are handled under the Organisation Assurance Policy and the Organisation Handbook.

• As of time of writing, there is no Handbook for Organisation Assurers or for the Organisation, and the policy needs rework; so (audit) roots will not have OA certs ....
• Drafts for ongoing story.

4.3. Certificate issuance

4.3.1. CA actions during certificate issuance

Key Sizes. Members may request keys of any size permitted by the key algorithm. Many older hardware devices require small keys.

Algorithms. CAcert currently only supports the RSA algorithm for X.509 keys. X.509 signing uses the SHA-1 message digest algorithm. OpenPGP Signing uses RSA signing over RSA and DSA keys.

Process for Certificates: All details in each certificate are verified by the website issuance system. Issuance is based on a 'template' system that selects profiles for certificate lifetime, size, algorithm.

1. The CSR is verified.
2. Data is extracted from CSR and verified:
   • Name §3.1,
   • Email address §4.2.2,
   • Domain address §4.2.2.
3. Certificate is generated from template.
4. Data is copied from CSR.
5. Certificate is signed.
6. Certificate is stored as well as mailed.

Process for OpenPGP key signatures: All details in each Sub-ID are verified by the website issuance system. Issuance is based on the configuration that selects the profile for signature lifetime, size, algorithm following the process:

1. The public key is verified.
2. Data is extracted from the key and verified (Name, Emails). Only the combinations of data in Table 4.3.1 are permitted.
3. OpenPGP Key Signature is generated.
4. Key Signature is applied to the key.
5. The signed key is stored as well as mailed.

4.3.2. Notification to subscriber by the CA of issuance of certificate

Once signed, the certificate is made available via the Member's account, and emailed to the Member. It is also archived internally.

4.4. Certificate acceptance

4.4.1. Conduct constituting certificate acceptance

There is no need for the Member to explicitly accept the certificate. In case the Member does not accept the certificate, the certificate has to be revoked and made again.

4.4.2. Publication of the certificate by the CA

CAcert does not currently publish the issued certificates in any repository. In the event that CAcert will run a repository, the publication of certificates and signatures there will be at the Member's options. However note that certificates that are issued and delivered to the Member are presumed to be published. See §2.2.

4.4.3. Notification of certificate issuance by the CA to other entities

There are no external entities that are notified about issued certificates.

4.5. Key pair and certificate usage

All Members (subscribers and relying parties) are obliged according to the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9) See especially 2.3 through 2.5.

4.5.1. Subscriber Usage and Responsibilities

Subscribers should use keys only for their proper purpose, as indicated by the certificate, or by wider agreement with others.

4.5.2. Relying Party Usage and Responsibilities

Relying parties (Members) may rely on the following.

The following notes are in addition to the Relying Party Statement, and can be seen as limitations on it.

4.5.2.a Methods of Verification

The term Verification as used in the Relying Party Statement means one of

4.5.2.b Who may rely

Members may rely. Relying parties are Members, and as such are bound by this CPS and the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9). The licence and permission to rely is not assignable.

Suppliers of Software. CAcert roots may be distributed in software, and those providers may enter into agreement with CAcert by means of the Third Party Vendor - Disclaimer and Licence (wip). This licence brings the supplier in to the Community to the extent that ...WIP comment: they agree to dispute resolution within CAcert's forum.

• Just exactly what the 3PV-DaL says is unclear.
• The document itself is more a collection of ideas.

NRPs may not rely. If not related to CAcert by means of an agreement that binds the parties to dispute resolution within CAcert's forum, a person is a Non-Related-Person (NRP). An NRP is not permitted to rely and is not a Relying Party. For more details, see the NRP - Disclaimer and Licence (COD4).

4.5.2.c The Act of Reliance

Decision making. Reliance means taking a decision that is in part or in whole based on the information in the certificate. A Relying Party may incorporate the information in the certificate, and the implied information such as Membership, into her decision-making. In making a decision, a Relying Party should also:

• include her own overall risk equation,
• include the general limitations of the Assurance process, certificates, and wider security considerations,
• make additional checks to provide more information,
• consider any wider agreement with the other Member, and
• use an appropriate protocol or custom of reliance (below).

Examining the Certificate. A Relying Party must make her own decision in using each certificate. She must examine the certificate, a process called validation. Certificate-related information includes, but is not limited to:

• Name,
• expiry time of certificate,
• current certificate revocation list (CRL),
• certificate chain and the validity check of the certificates in the chain,
• issuer of certificate (CAcert),
• SubRoot is intended for reliance (Assured, Organisation and Class 3)
• purpose of certificate.

Keeping Records. Records should be kept, appropriate to the import of the decision. The certificate should be preserved. This should include sufficient evidence to establish who the parties are (especially, the certificate relied upon), to establish the transaction in question, and to establish the wider agreement that defines the act.

Wider Protocol. In principle, reliance will be part of a wider protocol (customary method in reaching and preserving agreement) that presents and preserves sufficient of the evidence for dispute resolution under CAcert's forum of Arbitration. The protocol should be agreed amongst the parties, and tuned to the needs. This CPS does not define any such protocol. In the absence of such a protocol, reliance will be weakened; a dispute without sufficient evidence may be dismissed by an Arbitrator.

As Compared to Usage. Reliance goes beyond Usage. The latter is limited to letting the software act as the total and only Validation Authority. When relying, the Member also augments the algorithmic processing of the software with her own checks of the business, technical and certificate aspect.

4.5.2.d Risks and Limitations of Reliance

Roots and Naming. Where the Class 1 root is used, this Subscriber may be a new Member including one with zero points. Where the Name is not provided, this indicates it is not available. In these circumstances, reliance is not defined, and Relying parties should take more care. See Table 4.5.2.

Software Agent. When relying on a certificate, relying parties should note that your software is responsible for the way it shows you the information in a certificate. If your software agent hides parts of the information, your sole remedy may be to choose another software agent.

Malware. When relying on a certificate, relying parties should note that platforms that are vulnerable to viruses or trojans or other weaknesses may not process any certificates properly and may give deceptive or fraudulent results. It is your responsibility to ensure you are using a platform that is secured according to the needs of the application.

4.5.2.e When something goes wrong

In the event that an issue arises out of the Member's reliance, her sole avenue is to file dispute under DRP. See §9.13. For this purpose, the certificate (and other evidence) should be preserved.

Which person? Members may install certificates for other individuals or in servers, but the Member to whom the certificate is issued remains the responsible person. E.g., under Organisation Assurance, an organisation is issued a certificate for the use by individuals or servers within that organisation, but the Organisation is the responsible person.

Software Agent. If a Member is relying on a CAcert root embedded in the software as supplied by a vendor, the risks, liabilities and obligations of the Member do not automatically transfer to the vendor.

4.6. Certificate renewal

A certificate can be renewed at any time. The procedure of certificate renewal is the same as for the initial certificate issuance.

4.7. Certificate re-key

Certificate "re-keyings" are not offered nor supported. A new certificate with a new key has to be requested and issued instead, and the old one revoked.

4.8. Certificate modification

Certificate "modifications" are not offered nor supported. A new certificate has to be requested and issued instead.

4.9. Certificate revocation and suspension

4.9.1. Circumstances for revocation

Certificates may be revoked under the following circumstances:

1. As initiated by the Subscriber through her online account.
2. As initiated in an emergency action by a support team member. Such action will immediately be referred to dispute resolution for ratification.
3. Under direction from the Arbitrator in a duly ordered ruling from a filed dispute.

These are the only three circumstances under which a revocation occurs.

4.9.2. Who can request revocation

As above.

4.9.3. Procedure for revocation request

The Subscriber logs in to her online account through the website at http://www.cacert.org/ .

In any other event such as lost passwords or fraud, a dispute should be filed by email at < support AT cacert DOT org >

4.9.4. Revocation request grace period

No stipulation.

4.9.5. Time within which CA must process the revocation request

The revocation automated in the Web Interface for subscribers, and is handled generally in less than a minute.

A filed dispute that requests a revocation should be handled within a five business days, however the Arbitrator has discretion.

4.9.6. Revocation checking requirement for relying parties

Each revoked certificate is recorded in the certificate revocation list (CRL). Relying Parties must check a certificate against the most recent CRL issued, in order to validate the certificate for the intended reliance.

4.9.7. CRL issuance frequency (if applicable)

A new CRL is issued after every certificate revocation.

4.9.8. Maximum latency for CRLs (if applicable)

The maximum latency between revocation and issuance of the CRL is 1 hour.

4.9.9. On-line revocation/status checking availability

OCSP is available at http://ocsp.cacert.org/ .

4.9.10. On-line revocation checking requirements

Relying parties must check up-to-date status before relying.

4.9.11. Other forms of revocation advertisements available

None.

4.9.12. Special requirements re key compromise

Subscribers are obliged to revoke certificates at the earliest opportunity.

4.9.13. Circumstances for suspension

Suspension of certificates is not available.

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

OCSP is available at http://ocsp.cacert.org/ .

4.10.2. Service availability

OCSP is made available on an experimental basis.

4.10.3. Optional features

No stipulation.

4.11. End of subscription

Certificates include expiry dates.

4.12. Key escrow and recovery

4.12.1. Key escrow and recovery policy and practices

CAcert does not generate nor escrow subscriber keys.

4.12.2. Session key encapsulation and recovery policy and practices

No stipulation.

5. FACILITY, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATIONAL CONTROLS

5.1. Physical controls

Refer to Security Policy (COD8)

• Site location and construction - SP2.1
• Physical access - SP2.3

5.1.3. Power and air conditioning

Refer to Security Policy 2.1.2 (COD8)

5.1.4. Water exposures

Refer to Security Policy 2.1.4 (COD8)

5.1.5. Fire prevention and protection

Refer to Security Policy 2.1.4 (COD8)

5.1.6. Media storage

Refer to Security Policy 4.3 (COD8)

5.1.7. Waste disposal

No stipulation.

5.1.8. Off-site backup

Refer to Security Policy 4.3 (COD8)

5.2. Procedural controls

5.2.1. Trusted roles

• Technical teams:
  • User support personnel
  • Systems Administrators -- critical and non-critical
  • Softare Developers
  • controllers of keys
  Refer to Security Policy 9.1 (COD8)
• Assurance:
  • Assurers
  • Any others authorised under COD13
  Refer to Assurance Policy (COD13)
• Governance:
  • Directors (members of the CAcert Inc. committee, or "Board")
  • Internal Auditor
  • Arbitrator

5.2.2. Number of persons required per task

CAcert operates to the principles of four eyes and dual control. All important roles require a minimum of two persons. The people may be tasked to operate with an additional person observing (four eyes), or with two persons controlling (dual control).

5.2.3. Identification and authentication for each role

All important roles are generally required to be assured at least to the level of Assurer, as per AP. Refer to Assurance Policy (COD13).

Technical. Refer to Security Policy 9.1 (COD8).

5.2.4. Roles requiring separation of duties

Roles strive in general for separation of duties, either along the lines of four eyes principle or dual control.

5.3. Personnel controls

5.3.1. Qualifications, experience, and clearance requirements

5.3.2. Background check procedures

Refer to Security Policy 9.1.3 (COD8).

5.3.3. Training requirements

No stipulation.

5.3.4. Retraining frequency and requirements

No stipulation.

5.3.5. Job rotation frequency and sequence

No stipulation.

5.3.6. Sanctions for unauthorized actions

Any actions that are questionable - whether uncertain or grossly negligent - may be filed as a dispute. The Arbitrator has wide discretion in ruling on loss of points, retraining, or termination of access or status. Refer to DRP.

5.3.7. Independent contractor requirements

No stipulation.

5.3.8. Documentation supplied to personnel

No stipulation.

5.4. Audit logging procedures

Refer to Security Policy 4.2, 5 (COD8).

5.5. Records archival

The standard retention period is 7 years. Once archived, records can only be obtained and verified by means of a filed dispute. Following types of records are archived:

5.6. Key changeover

Refer to Security Policy 9.2 (COD8).

5.7. Compromise and disaster recovery

Refer to Security Policy 5, 6 (COD8). (Refer to §1.4 for limitations to service.)

5.8. CA or RA termination

5.8.1 CA termination

If CAcert should terminate its operation or be taken over by another organisation, the actions will be conducted according to a plan approved by the CAcert Inc. Board.

In the event of operational termination, the Roots (including SubRoots) and all private Member information will be secured. The Roots will be handed over to a responsible party for the sole purpose of issuing revocations. Member information will be securely destroyed.

In the event of takeover, the Board will decide if it is in the interest of the Members to be converted to the new organisation. Members will be notified about the conversion and transfer of the Member information. Such takeover, conversion or transfer may involve termination of this CPS and other documents. See §9.10.2. Members will have reasonable time in which to file a related dispute after notification (at least one month). See §9.13.

5.8.2 RA termination

When an Assurer desires to voluntarily terminates her responsibilities, she does this by filing a dispute, and following the instructions of the Arbitrator.

In the case of involuntary termination, the process is the same, save for some other party filing the dispute.

6. TECHNICAL SECURITY CONTROLS

6.1. Key Pair Generation and Installation

6.1.1. Key Pair Generation

Subscribers generate their own Key Pairs.

6.1.2. Subscriber Private key security

There is no technical stipulation on how Subscribers generate and keep safe their private keys, however, CCA 2.5 provides for general security obligations. See §9.6.

6.1.3. Public Key Delivery to Certificate Issuer

Members login to their online account. Public Keys are delivered by cut-and-pasting them into the appropriate window. Public Keys are delivered in signed-CSR form for X.509 and in self-signed form for OpenPGP.

6.1.4. CA Public Key delivery to Relying Parties

The CA root certificates are distributed by these means:

• Published on the website of CAcert, in both HTTP and HTTPS.
• Included in Third-Party Software such as Browsers, Email-Clients. Such suppliers are subject to the Third Party Vendor Agreement.

Third Party Vendor Agreement is early wip, only

6.1.5. Key sizes

No limitation is placed on Subscriber key sizes.

CAcert X.509 root and intermediate keys are currently 4096 bits. X.509 roots use RSA and sign with the SHA-1 message digest algorithm. See §4.3.1.

OpenPGP Signing uses both RSA and DSA (1024 bits).

CAcert adds larger keys and hashes in line with general cryptographic trends, and as supported by major software suppliers.

• old Class 3 SubRoot is signed with MD5
• likely this will clash with future plans of vendors to drop acceptance of MD5
• Is this a concern?
• to users who have these certs, a lot?
• to audit, not much?

6.1.6. Public key parameters generation and quality checking

No stipulation.

6.1.7. Key Usage Purposes

• This section probably needs to detail the key usage bits in the certs.

CAcert roots are general purpose. Each root key may sign all of the general purposes - client, server, code.

The website controls the usage purposes that may be signed. This is effected by means of the 'template' system.

6.2. Private Key Protection and Cryptographic Module Engineering Controls

6.2.1. Cryptographic module standards and controls

SubRoot keys are stored on a single machine which acts as a Cryptographic Module, or signing server. It operates a single daemon for signing only. The signing server has these security features:

• It is connected only by one dedicated (serial USB) link to the online account server. It is not connected to the network, nor to any internal LAN (ethernet), nor to a console switch.
• The protocol over the dedicated link is a custom, simple request protocol that only handles certificate signing requests.
• The daemon is designed not to reveal the key.
• The daemon incorporates a dead-man switch that monitors the one webserver machine that requests access.
• The daemon shuts down if a bad request is detected.
• The daemon resides on an encrypted partition.
• The signing server can only be (re)started with direct systems administration access.
• Physical Access to the signing server is under dual control.

See §5. and the Security Policy 9.3.1.

(Hardware-based, commercial and standards-based cryptographic modules have been tried and tested, and similar have been tested, but have been found wanting, e.g., for short key lengths and power restrictions.)

1. What document is responsible for architecture? CPS? SM? website? SM punts it to CPS, so above stays.
2. There is no criteria on Architecture.
3. Old questions moved to SM.
4. See CAcert Root key protection which should be deprecated by this CPS.

6.3. Other aspects of key pair management

6.3.1. Public key archival

Subscriber certificates, including public keys, are stored in the database backing the online system. They are not made available in a public- or subscriber-accessible archive, see §2. They are backed-up by CAcert's normal backup procedure, but their availability is a subscriber responsibility.

6.3.2. Certificate operational periods and key pair usage periods

The operational period of a certificate and its key pair depends on the Assurance status of the Member, see §1.4.5 and Assurance Policy (COD13).

The CAcert (top-level) Root certificate has a 30 year expiry. SubRoots have 10 years, and are to be rolled over more quickly. The keysize of the root certificates are chosen in order to ensure an optimum security to CAcert Members based on current recommendations from the cryptographic community and maximum limits in generally available software. At time of writing this is 4096 bits.

6.4. Activation data

No stipulation.

6.5. Computer security controls

Refer to Security Policy.

6.6. Life cycle technical controls

Refer to SM7 "Software Development".

6.7. Network security controls

Refer to SM3.1 "Logical Security - Network".

6.8. Time-stamping

Each server synchronises with NTP. No "timestamping" service is currently offered.

• How does the signing server syncronise if only connected over serial?
• How is timestamping done on records?

7. CERTIFICATE, CRL, AND OCSP PROFILES

CAcert defines all the meanings, semantics and profiles applicable to issuance of certificates and signatures in its policies, handbooks and other documents. Meanings that may be written in external standards or documents or found in wider conventions are not incorporated, are not used by CAcert, and must not be implied by the Member or the Non-related Person.

7.1. Certificate profile

7.1.1. Version number(s)

What versions of PGP are signed? v3? v4?

Issued X.509 certificates are of v3 form. The form of the PGP signatures depends on several factors, therefore no stipulation.

7.1.2. Certificate extensions

Client certificates include the following extensions:.

• basicConstraints=CA:FALSE (critical)
• keyUsage=digitalSignature,keyEncipherment,cRLSign
• extendedKeyUsage=emailProtection,clientAuth,serverAuth,msEFS,msSGC,nsSGC
• authorityInfoAccess = OCSP;URI:http://ocsp.cacert.org
• subjectAltName=(as per §3.1.1.).

• what about Client Certificates Adobe Signing extensions ?
• SubjectAltName should become critical if DN is removed http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.6

Server certificates include the following extensions:

• basicConstraints=CA:FALSE (critical)
• keyUsage=digitalSignature,keyEncipherment
• extendedKeyUsage=clientAuth,serverAuth,nsSGC,msSGC
• authorityInfoAccess = OCSP;URI:http://ocsp.cacert.org
• subjectAltName=(as per §3.1.1.).

Code-Signing certificates include the following extensions:

• basicConstraints=CA:FALSE (critical)
• keyUsage=digitalSignature,keyEncipherment
• extendedKeyUsage=emailProtection,clientAuth,codeSigning,msCodeInd,msCodeCom,msEFS,msSGC,nsSGC
• authorityInfoAccess = OCSP;URI:http://ocsp.cacert.org

• what about subjectAltName for Code-signing

OpenPGP key signatures currently do not include extensions. In the future, a serial number might be included as an extension.

7.1.3. Algorithm object identifiers

No stipulation.

7.1.4. Name forms

Refer to §3.1.1.

7.1.5. Name constraints

Refer to §3.1.1.

7.1.6. Certificate policy object identifier

The following OIDs are defined and should be incorporated into certificates:

Versions are defined by additional numbers appended such as .1.

7.1.7. Usage of Policy Constraints extension

No stipulation.

7.1.8. Policy qualifiers syntax and semantics

No stipulation.

7.1.9. Processing semantics for the critical Certificate Policies extension

No stipulation.

7.2. CRL profile

7.2.1. Version number(s)

CRLs are created in X.509 v2 format.

7.2.2. CRL and CRL entry extensions

No extensions.

7.3. OCSP profile

7.3.1. Version number(s)

The OCSP responder operates in Version 1.

7.3.2. OCSP extensions

No stipulation.

8. COMPLIANCE AUDIT AND OTHER ASSESSMENTS

There are two major threads of assessment:

• Systems Audit. Analyses the CA for business and operations security. This is conducted in two phases: documents for compliance with criteria, and operations for compliance with documentation.
• Code Audit. Analyses the source code. This is conducted at two levels: Security concepts at the web applications level, and source code security and bugs review.

See the Audit page at wiki.cacert.org/wiki/Audit/ for more information.

8.1. Frequency or circumstances of assessment

The first audits started in late 2005, and since then, assessments have been an ongoing task. Even when completed, they are expected to be permanent features.

• Systems Audit. The first phase of the first audit is nearing completion. The second phase starts in earnest when documentation is in effect, at lease as DRAFT under PoP. As the second phase is dependent on this CPS and the Security Policy, they will be in effect as DRAFT at least before the first audit is completed. Only prior and completed audits can be reported here.
• Code Audit. A complete review of entire source code has not yet been completed.

8.2. Identity/qualifications of assessor

Systems Auditors. CAcert uses business systems auditors with broad experience across the full range of business, information systems and security fields. In selecting a business systems auditor, CAcert looks for experience that includes but is not limited to cryptography, PKI, governance, auditing, compliance and regulatory environments, business strategy, software engineering, networks, law (including multijurisdictional issues), identity systems, fraud, IT management.

Code Auditors. See Security Policy, sections 7, 9.1.

8.3. Assessor's relationship to assessed entity

Specific internal restrictions on audit personnel:

• Must be Assured by CAcert Assurers and must be background checked.
• Must not have been active in any (other) role in CAcert. Specifically, must not be an Assurer, a member of the association, or in any other defined role or office.
• Although the Auditor may be expected to undertake various of the activities (Assurance, Training) during the process of the audit, any results are frozen until resignation as auditor is effected.
• The Auditor is required to declare to CAcert all potential conflicts of interest on an ongoing basis.

Specific external restrictions on audit personnel:

• Should have a verifiable and lengthy history in user privacy and user security.
• Must not have worked for a competitive organisation.
• Must not have worked for national security, intelligence, LEO or similar agencies.

An Auditor may convene an audit team. The same restrictions apply in general to all members of the team, but may be varied. Any deviations must be documented and approved by the CAcert Inc. Board.

8.4. Topics covered by assessment

Systems Audits are generally conducted to criteria. CAcert requires that the criteria are open:

• Published. The criteria must be reviewable by all interested parties.
• Understandable. They should be understandable, in that they provide the sufficient information in a readable form for interested parties to follow the gist and importance. (Arcane security criteria may stretch this requirement.)
• Complete. There must be sufficent background information that the whole story is there. Especially, criteria that refer to undocumented practices or conventions deliberately kept secret must be avoided.
• Applicable. The criteria should relate directly and unambiguously to a need of the identified interested parties (Members, Relying Parties, Subscribers, Assurers).

See DRC for the current criteria. If Auditor determines that a criteria fails to follow the meet the above requirements, then the criteria should be reworked to conform, or should be dropped (both with explanatory notes).

8.5. Actions taken as a result of deficiency

See the current Audit Done list for work completed, and Audit Todo list for work in progress.

Auditor may issue directives instructing changes, where essential to audit success or other extreme situations. Directives should be grounded on criteria, on established minimum or safe practices, or clearly described logic. Adequate discussion with Community (e.g., CAcert Inc. Board and with Policy Group) should precede any directive. They should be presented to the same standard as the criteria, above.

The wiki.cacert.org/wiki/AuditDirectives documents issued directives and actions.

8.6. Communication of results

Current and past Audit information is available at wiki.CAcert.org/wiki/Audit/. CAcert runs an open disclosure policy and Audit is no exception.

This CPS and other documents are subject to the process in Policy on Policy (COD1). Audits cover the overall processes more than any one document, and documents may vary even as Audit reports are delivered.

9. OTHER BUSINESS AND LEGAL MATTERS

9.1. Fees

The current fees structure is posted at wiki.cacert.org/wiki/Price. Changes to the fees structure will be announced from time to time on the blog. CAcert retains the right to charge fees for services. All fees are non-refundable.

9.2. Financial responsibility

Financial risks are dealt with primarily by the Dispute Resolution Policy (COD7).

9.2.1. Insurance coverage

No stipulation.

9.2.2. Other assets

No stipulation.

9.2.3. Insurance or warranty coverage for end-entities

No stipulation.

9.3. Confidentiality of business information

9.3.1. Scope of confidential information

CAcert has a policy of transparency and openness. The default posture is that information is public to the extent possible, unless covered by specific policy provisions (for example, passwords) or rulings by Arbitrator.

9.4. Privacy of personal information

Privacy is covered by the CCA (COD9) and the Privacy Policy (COD5).

9.4.1. Privacy plan

No stipulation.

9.4.2. Information treated as private

Member's Date of Birth and "Lost Password" questions are treated as fully private.

9.4.3. Information not deemed private

To the extent that information is put into an issued certificate, that information is not deemed private, as it is expected to be published by the Member as part of routine use of the certificate. Such information generally includes Names, domains, email addresses, and certificate serial numbers.

Under Assurance Policy (COD13) the Member's status (as Assured, Assurer, etc) is available to other Members.

Information placed in forums outside the online system (wiki, blogs, policies, etc) is not deemed private, and is generally deemed to be published as contributions by Members. See CCA1.3 (COD9).

9.4.4. Responsibility to protect private information

CAcert is a privacy organisation and takes privacy more seriously. Any privacy issue may be referred to dispute resolution.

9.4.5. Notice and consent to use private information

Members are permitted to rely on certificates of other Members. As a direct consequence of the general right to rely, Members may read and store the certificates and/or the information within them, where duly presented in a relationship, and to the extent necessary for the agreed relationship.

9.4.6. Disclosure pursuant to judicial or administrative process

Any disclosure pursuant to process from foreign courts (or similar) is controlled by the Arbitrator.

9.4.7. Other information disclosure circumstances

None.

9.5. Intellectual property rights

CAcert is committed to the philosophy of an open and free Internet, broadly as encapsulated by open and free source. However, due to the strict control provisions imposed by the audit criteria (CCS), and the general environment and role of CAs, and the commitment to security of Members, some deviations are necessary.

9.5.1. Ownership and Licence

Assets that fall under the control of CCS must be transferred to CAcert. See PoP 6.2 (COD1), CCA 1.3 (COD9). That is, CAcert is free to use, modify, distribute, and otherwise conduct the business of the CA as CAcert sees fit with the asset.

9.5.2. Brand

The brand of CAcert is made up of its logo, name, trademark, service marks, etc. Use of the brand is strictly limited by the Board, and permission is required. See m20070917.5.

9.5.3. Documents

CAcert owns or requires full control over its documents, especially those covered by CCS. See PoP 6.2 (COD1). Contributors transfer the rights, see CCA 1.3 (COD9). Contributors warrant that they have the right to transfer.

Documents are generally licensed under free and open licence. See wiki.cacert.org/wiki/PolicyDrafts/DocumentLicence. Except where explicitly negotiated, CAcert extends back to contributors a non-exclusive, unrestricted perpetual licence, permitting them to to re-use their original work freely. See PoP 6.4 (COD1), CCA 1.3 (COD9).

9.5.4. Code

CAcert owns its code or requires full control over code in use by means of a free and open licence. See CCS.

See the (new, wip) SourceCodeManifesto. Maybe this can replace these two paras?

CAcert licenses its code under GPL. CAcert extends back to contributors a non-exclusive, unrestricted perpetual licence, permitting them to to re-use their original work freely.

9.5.5. Certificates and Roots

CAcert asserts its intellectual property rights over certificates issued to Members and over roots. See CCA 4.4 (COD9), CCS. The certificates may only be used by Members under COD9, and, by others under the licences offered, such as Non-Related Persons - Disclaimer and Licence (COD4).

9.6. Representations and warranties

Members. All Members of the Community agree to the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9), which is the primary document for representations and warranties. Members include Subscribers, Relying Parties, Registration Agents and the CA itself.

RAs. Registration Agents are obliged additionally by Assurance Policy, especially 3.1, 4.1 (COD13).

CA. The CA is obliged additionally by the CCS.

Third Party Vendors. Distributors of the roots are offered the wip 3rd-Party Vendors - Disclaimer and Licence (3PV-DaL => CODx) and are offered wip the same deal as Members to the extent that they agree to be Members in the Community. wip

9.7. Disclaimers of Warranties

Persons who have not accepted the above Agreements are offered the Non-Related Persons - Disclaimer and Licence (COD4). Any representations and warranties are strictly limited to nominal usage. In essence, NRPs may USE but must not RELY.

In today's aggressive fraud environment, and within the context of CAcert as a community CA, all parties should understand that CAcert and its Subscribers, Assurers and other roles provide service on a Best Efforts basis. See §1.4. CAcert seeks to provide an adequate minimum level of quality in operations for its Members without undue risks to NRPs. See Principles.

CAcert on behalf of the Community and itself makes no Warranty nor Guarantee nor promise that the service or certificates are adequate for the needs and circumstances.

9.8. Limitations of liability

9.8.1 Non-Related Persons

CAcert on behalf of related parties (RAs, Subscribers, etc) and itself disclaims all liability to NRPs in their usage of CA's certificates. See COD4.

9.8.2 Liabilities Between Members

Liabilities between Members are dealt with by internal dispute resolution, which rules on liability and any limits. See §9.13.

9.9. Indemnities

No stipulation.

9.10. Term and termination

9.10.1. Term

No stipulation.

9.10.2. Termination

Members file a dispute to terminate their agreement. See §9.13 and CCA 3.3 (COD9).

Documents are varied (including terminated) under COD1.

For termination of the CA, see §5.8.1.

9.10.3. Effect of termination and survival

No stipulation.

9.11. Individual notices and communications with participants

All participants are obliged to keep their listed primary email addresses in good working order. See CCA 3.5 (COD9).

9.12. Amendments

Amendments to the CPS are controlled by COD1. Any changes in Member's Agreements are notified under CCA 3.4 (COD9).

9.13. Dispute resolution provisions

CAcert provides a forum and facility for any Member or other related party to file a dispute.

• The CAcert Dispute Resolution Policy (COD7) includes rules for dispute resolution.
• Filing is done via email to < support AT cacert DOT org >

Members agree to file all disputes through CAcert's forum for dispute resolution. The rules include specific provisions to assist non-Members, etc, to file dispute in this forum.

9.14. Governing law

The governing law is that of New South Wales, Australia. Disputes are generally heard before the Arbitrator under this law. Exceptionally, the Arbitrator may elect to apply the law of the parties and events, where in common, but this is unlikely because it may create results that are at odds with the Community.

9.15. Compliance with Applicable Law

9.15.1 Digital Signature Law

The Commonwealth and States of Australia have passed various Electronic Transactions Acts that speak to digital signatures. In summary, these acts follow the "technology neutral" model and permit but do not regulate the use of digital signatures.

This especially means that the signatures created by certificates issued by CAcert are not in and of themselves legally binding human signatures, at least according to the laws of Australia. See §1.4.3. However, certificates may play a part in larger signing applications. See §1.4.1 for "digital signing" certificates. These applications may impose significant obligations, risks and liabilities on the parties.

9.15.2 Privacy Law

See the Privacy Policy (COD5).

9.15.3 Legal Process from External Forums

CAcert will provide information about its Members only under legal subpoena or equivalent process from a court of competent jurisdiction. Any requests made by legal subpoena are treated as under the Dispute Resolution Policy See §9.13 and COD7. That is, all requests are treated as disputes, as only a duly empanelled Arbitrator has the authorisation and authority to rule on the such requests.

A subpoena should include sufficient legal basis to support an Arbitrator in ruling that information be released pursuant to the filing, including the names of claimants in any civil case and an indication as to whether the claimants are Members or not (and are therefore subject to Dispute Resolution Policy).

9.16. Miscellaneous provisions

9.16.1. Entire agreement

All Members of the Community agree to the CAcert Community Agreement (COD9). This agreement also incorporates other key documents, being this CPS, DRP and PP. See CCA 4.2.

The Configuration-Control Specification is the set of policies that rule over the Community, of which the above documents are part. See COD2. Documents that have reached full POLICY status are located at www.cacert.org/policy/. Although detailed practices may be found in other places on the website and on the wiki, the CCS documents that have reached DRAFT and POLICY status are the ruling documents.

9.16.2. Assignment

The rights within CCA may not be ordinarily assigned.

9.16.3. Severability

No stipulation.

9.16.4. Enforcement (attorneys' fees and waiver of rights)

The Arbitrator will specify fees and remedies, if any.

9.16.5. Force Majeure

No stipulation.

---This is the end of the Policy---