Frank Siebenlist writes:
In other words, the Subject's DN should start with an identifier that essentially identifies the administrative domain in which the names are issued, e.g. \DOMAIN=ESNET.NET, followed by a \CN=abbf16d0-3b5f-11da-8cd6-0800200c9a66 In that way, a CA could be restraint to issue random names within a certain domain.
Here's the subject name I had from Thawte: E = helm@fionn.es.net, CN = Michael Helm That's it. The E= was just for my convenience. I could create other certificates with a different E= attribute if I needed to. Name collisions by themselves - so what? I have the same name on my driver's license and on my library card. Nobody gets worked up over that. What I think you want, is to make sure that same name string isn't certified to two different people. But we don't have technical means guarantee this. Even the current name constraints / signing policy scheme cannot prevent this, it can only make it a little more difficult. You can eliminate most "legitimate" collisions by including some link to the issuer in any authentication determination. That's the administrative domain. You find some CA issues duplicate DN's from other domains? Don't use them. In any event, having an issuer field will limit what damage they can do. You find some collision? You don't like it? Take it up with the CA's that did it. They are highly motivated not to have this problem. Why is this such a huge problem? I have never understood the amount of time & energy spent on it in our community. I sure wish we didn't have the current signing policy file scheme.