Re: [TLS] DSS with other than SHA-1 algorithms

[Rob Stradling <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday 11 May 2011 15:14:10 Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 11, 2011, at 3:49 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 May 2011 09:38:33 Peter Gutmann wrote:
> >> Martin Rex <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>> There are probably a number of reasons why we are seeing very few (if
> >>> any) ECDSA certs issued by commercial CAs.  EC algorithms are still
> >>> patent encumbered, and the licensing scheme by the patent holder was a
> >>> pay-per- issued-certificate targetting commercial CAs.
> >> 
> >> Are the CAs impeded by patents?
> > 
> > The first commercial CA to answer "No" and proceed to issue ECC certs
> > will almost certainly end up in court with an expensive legal bill. 
> > Even if the correct answer really is "No".
> > 
> > So yes, the CAs are impeded by patents.
> 
> This makes it sound like there are patents are issuing ECC certs. However,
> that statement seems to fly in the face of RFC 6090. Can you clarify?

Hi Paul.  Thanks for pointing me at RFC 6090.  I'd not seen it before.  I 
agree that it appears to claim that issuing ECC certs is unencumbered by 
patents.

I wonder if Certicom are aware of this RFC, and if so, what their opinion of 
it is.

> This seems particularly odd because Comodo has issued itself an ECC
> certificate that is now widely distributed.

Certicom are aware of our ECC root certificate and they have not raised any 
objections.  Several other CAs are now distributing ECC Roots too.  I think 
Certicom see this activity as increasing the likelihood that CAs will pay to 
license their patents.

However, AIUI, we've been led to believe that Certicom would object if a CA 
started to issue ECDSA-signed end-entity certs without some kind of license 
from Certicom.

> --Paul Hoffman

Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online