← SECOM Trust Systems CO., LTD. cases
Bugzilla #1452671 Certificate Misissuance Closure Request

SECOM: TSA certs issued from root

RESOLVED FIXED SECOM Trust Systems CO., LTD.
This summary was auto-generated by AI and revised by me when needed — accuracy improves with each update. Always refer to the official Bugzilla thread as the authoritative source. If you spot an inaccuracy, let me know via the contact form.
AI Summary

The bug was opened after CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements were amended to clarify that certificates with EKU id-kp-timeStamping must not be issued from roots. The reporter stated that SECOM had issued three timestamping (TSA) certificates in violation of this requirement and provided links to the certificates. SECOM responded that it investigated countermeasures and submitted an incident report describing how it became aware of the issue and why it believed the exception was not applied as expected after Ballot 189. SECOM stated it planned to change to a more secure new Root CA and to stop directly issuing TSA certificates from a root, and later reported that it had built a new timestamping intermediate CA and started issuing TSA certificates from that intermediate CA to one of its time stamping providers. When asked whether it would revoke still-valid timestamping certificates issued from the root, SECOM said it believed revoking TSA certificates was difficult due to long-term integrity needs for documents under Japan’s Digital Signature Act. The reporter agreed the explanation was acceptable and closed the bug, with the bug marked RESOLVED and resolution FIXED.

Model: gpt-5.4-nano Generated: 2026-06-13 17:48 UTC Revised: 2026-06-16 18:37 UTC Confidence: 0.86 9 comments
Chronology
  1. A CA/Browser Forum ballot amendment clarified that id-kp-timeStamping certificates must not be issued from roots, and the reporter identified three SECOM-issued TSA certificates violating the requirement.
  2. SECOM began investigating countermeasures after receiving the Bugzilla notice.
  3. SECOM published an incident report and described planned changes to stop direct TSA issuance from a root.
  4. SECOM stated it was targeting end of September to build a new TSA intermediate CA and coordinate with Adobe.
  5. SECOM reported it had built a new timestamping intermediate CA and started issuing TSA certificates from that intermediate CA.
  6. The reporter closed the bug after accepting SECOM’s explanation regarding revocation.
Thread Activity
  1. Fastly representative — Reported that three TSA certificates were issued in violation of the Baseline Requirements change and requested an incident report, linking to the required incident-report process.
  2. Secom representative — Acknowledged the notice, apologized for a delayed response, and said SECOM would investigate countermeasures.
  3. Secom representative — Provided an incident report describing how SECOM became aware, its investigation timeline, its explanation for the mistake, and steps planned to stop directly issuing TSA certs from a root.
  4. Fastly representative — Asked for a timeline to complete the change and whether SECOM would issue any more TSA certs from a root before the change.
  5. Secom representative — Said SECOM would build a new TSA intermediate CA, verify with customers, negotiate and embed with Adobe, and targeted end of September; it also said it did not have a plan to issue TSA certs from a root prior to the change.
  6. Secom representative — Reported that SECOM had built a new timestamping intermediate CA and started issuing TSA certificates from that intermediate CA to one of its time stamping provider(s).
  7. Fastly representative — Asked whether SECOM would revoke still-valid timestamping certificates that were issued from the root.
  8. Secom representative — Explained that SECOM believed revoking TSA certificates is difficult due to long-term integrity needs for documents under Japan’s Digital Signature Act and described the certificate usage timeline.
  9. Fastly representative — Stated the explanation for not revoking the misissued TSA certificates was acceptable and closed the bug.
Participants
Fastly representative Secom representative
Similar Local Cases
#1532105 RESOLVED Certificate Misissuance Opened 2019-03-03 · Closed 2023-02-22 · 94% similar
SECOM: CrossTrust: OU > 64 characters
#1497703 RESOLVED Self Reported Incident Certificate Misissuance Closure Request Opened 2018-10-09 · Closed 2023-02-22 · 86% similar
SECOM: Undisclosed intermediate certificates
#1805866 RESOLVED Certificate Misissuance Opened 2022-12-15 · Closed 2023-02-02 · 85% similar
SECOM: One of the EV certificate was mis-issued with the incorrect Registration Number by Cybertrust Japan (CTJ)
#1391064 RESOLVED Self Reported Incident Incident Closure Request Opened 2017-08-16 · Closed 2023-02-22 · 76% similar
SECOM: Non-BR-Compliant Certificate Issuance
#1398259 RESOLVED Self Reported Incident Incident Closure Request Opened 2017-09-08 · Closed 2023-02-22 · 75% similar
SECOM: Non-BR-Compliant OCSP Responders
#1462797 RESOLVED Certificate Misissuance Opened 2018-05-18 · Closed 2023-02-22 · 71% similar
E-Tugra: Improper DER results in failure to comply with RFC 5280 - Invalid characters in PrintableString
#1586792 RESOLVED Ca Certificate Compliance Certificate Misissuance Opened 2019-10-07 · Closed 2023-02-22 · 70% similar
QuoVadis: Issuance of intermediates after 2019-01-01 that do not comply with Mozilla Policy or the BRs
#1527423 RESOLVED Certificate Misissuance Opened 2019-02-12 · Closed 2023-02-22 · 70% similar
DigiCert: P-384,ecdsa-with-SHA512 Certificates

We use only essential cookies and local browser storage for preferences and security. See our Privacy Policy for details.

Confirm action