Policy-Discussion

[Benedikt Heintel <benedikt AT cacert.org>]

No Objections with PoJAM.

Security Policy (SP) should undergo a review and should be made ISO
27001 conform. It's on my task list but not on priority 1.

One Policy I like to add is CP / CPS. It is not totally compliant to RFC
3647. The RFC states one policy or at least one practice statement per
(sub-)CA. As I figured out, CAcert has 4 CAs: Test (no security),
Anonymous (low security), Named and Organisation (medium security).
Not really covered is the security need for code signing. However,
CAcert is not capable to issue high security certificates at the moment.
This is also on my task list, after SP is done.

Regards
Benedikt

Am 15.02.2013 20:58, schrieb Ian G:
>>
>> Any other suggestions?
> 
> To pick up on this, some other suggestions have circulated:
> 
> *  move PoJAM to POLICY
> 
> *  move Security Policy to POLICY


-- 
Benedikt Heintel - 
benedikt AT cacert.org
CAcert Assurer for People & Organizations

CAcert.org - Secure Together
http://www.cacert.org

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift