Official Certificates and Standards: Certificate Authority
Date: July 15, 2026
This document does not invent a certification. There is no single universal vendor-neutral credential that replaces the whole CA workshop. The relevant anchors are standards, policies, audits, and role-specific security certifications.
1. Authoritative Technical Sources
- RFC 5280 for X.509 certificate and CRL profiles
- CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements for publicly trusted TLS certificates
- NIST SP 800-57 for key-management recommendations
2. Workshop Mapping
| Workshop Area | Relevant Evidence |
|---|---|
| Fundamentals | inspect certificates, verify chains, understand extensions |
| Intermediate | private lab PKI, CRL, OCSP, mTLS, trust stores |
| Professional | automation, Vault PKI, cert-manager, monitoring, renewal |
| Advanced + Security | key ceremony, offline root, HSM/KMS, audit, incident response |
3. Boundaries
This workshop does not replace WebTrust, ETSI, organization-specific audits, or CA/Browser Forum compliance work. Public CAs must check their currently applicable requirements themselves.
Sources and Further References
- RFC 5280: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5280
- CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements: https://cabforum.org/working-groups/server/baseline-requirements/requirements/
- CA/Browser Forum TLS BR Documents: https://cabforum.org/working-groups/server/baseline-requirements/documents/
- NIST SP 800-57 Part 1 Rev. 5: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/57/pt1/r5/final
- NIST SP 800-57 Rev. 6 Initial Public Draft: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/57/pt1/r6/ipd
- OpenSSL Documentation: https://docs.openssl.org/
- OpenSSL
ca: https://docs.openssl.org/3.0/man1/openssl-ca/ - OpenSSL
x509: https://docs.openssl.org/3.0/man1/openssl-x509/ - Let's Encrypt Documentation: https://letsencrypt.org/docs/
- HashiCorp Vault PKI Secrets Engine: https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/docs/secrets/pki
- cert-manager Documentation: https://cert-manager.io/docs/
- Smallstep Documentation: https://smallstep.com/docs/
Practice Appendix: CA Evidence for this Assessment
This appendix makes the file more complete as workshop material: it connects the topic with repeatable evidence, review questions, operational decisions and security expectations. The points are not invented product features; they are real review criteria for PKI work with X.509, OpenSSL and common CA operating models.
A.1 Scope and Boundary
Every CA task starts by separating a private lab PKI, an internal enterprise PKI and publicly trusted server certificates. That distinction changes responsibilities, audit requirements, validity periods, revocation handling and which clients may trust the certificate.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.2 Trust Model
The trust model states which root is distributed as trust anchor, which intermediates may sign and which relying parties evaluate the chain. Without that model a technically valid certificate can still be operationally unclear.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.3 Root CA Handling
A root CA is a local learning artifact in this workshop. In real environments the root key is kept offline or in an HSM and controlled through ceremonies, separated roles, logs and recovery plans.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.4 Intermediate CA Operations
Intermediate CAs are the operational signing layer. Their certificates need CA:TRUE, keyCertSign, cRLSign, suitable path length constraints and a clear lifecycle and rotation plan.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.5 Registration Authority
The RA or approval function decides whether a request may be signed. For internal servers this means at least system owner, DNS name, environment, purpose, lifetime, responsible team and change window are traceable.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.6 Private Key Protection
Private keys are the most sensitive PKI asset. Repositories should contain configurations, CSRs, public certificates and evidence only. Keys are created below work/ in labs or in protected systems and are not committed.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.7 CSR Review
A CSR proves possession of a private key, but not authorization for a name. Review the subject, SANs, public key algorithm, key size, requester and intended certificate type.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.8 X.509 Extensions
Extensions are security logic, not decoration. Basic constraints, key usage, extended key usage, subject alternative name, subject key identifier and authority key identifier define what a certificate may be accepted for.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.9 SAN and Naming Model
Server identity is checked through SANs. The common name alone is not sufficient for modern hostname verification. Internal namespaces, documentation domains and production domains must remain separate.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.10 Chain Verification
A reliable check separates trust anchor and chain certificates. In practice: root through -CAfile, intermediate through -untrusted, leaf as the target certificate and hostname verification where needed.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.11 Revocation
Revocation is an operating process, not an afterthought. CRL or OCSP data must be produced, published, monitored and actually consumed by relevant clients.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.12 Expiry and Renewal
Certificates need a renewal window before they become critical. The decision covers a new serial, new signature, optionally a new key, rollout order and rollback plan.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.13 Automation
Automation through Vault PKI, cert-manager, ACME, Smallstep or SPIFFE reduces manual work, but does not replace policy. Roles, TTLs, issuers, approvers and audit remain explicit.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.14 Audit and Evidence
Evidence must show what was created, checked and approved. Good evidence contains OpenSSL output, fingerprints, serial numbers, chain verification, CRL or OCSP status and no secrets.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.15 Incident Response
For key compromise the order matters: identify affected serials, revoke, update CRL or OCSP, issue replacements, notify operators, preserve logs and document the root cause.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.16 Policy and CPS
A Certificate Policy describes what is allowed. A Certification Practice Statement describes how it is operated. Even private PKIs benefit from this separation because it stabilizes review and operations.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.17 Environment
WSL, VMs, bare metal and cloud differ in trust store behavior, file permissions, package versions and paths. Commands and evidence must therefore name the local environment.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.18 Security Hardening
Hardening covers file permissions, separated roles, short lifetimes, minimal EKUs, safe algorithms, offline root, controlled intermediates and monitoring for expiry or unusual issuance.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.19 Troubleshooting
PKI troubleshooting starts with the chain: does the private key match, is the CSR correct, was the certificate signed correctly, is the chain complete and does the client trust the root?
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.20 Team Workflow
In workshops and real teams one person should create, a second person should review and a third person should be able to reproduce the evidence. This makes PKI mistakes visible earlier.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.21 Submission Format
A solid submission contains configuration, public artifacts, evidence, failure analysis, cleanup notes and a short operational assessment. Private keys and production data are intentionally absent.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.22 Production Transfer
Moving from lab to production is not copying OpenSSL commands. It requires roles, safe key storage, monitoring, backup, revocation distribution, documentation and regularly practiced recovery.
| Review field | Expectation |
|---|---|
| Goal | The section can be answered concretely in the context of 05-official-certificates-certificate-authority-EN.md. |
| Evidence | The statement can be backed by configuration, OpenSSL output, logs, fingerprints, serial numbers or a documented decision. |
| Risk | Missing or wrong data can lead to misplaced trust, outage or non-traceable revocation. |
Concrete review questions:
- Which entity is protected or signed?
- Which file or output backs the statement?
- Which role is played by the root, intermediate, leaf or client?
- Which assumption needs additional production review?
- Which change must be traceable in audit?
- Which cleanup or protection step prevents accidental secret leaks?
A.23 Minimal Evidence Set
evidence/
context.md
openssl-version.txt
csr-review.txt
certificate-summary.txt
certificate-extensions.txt
chain-verification.txt
revocation-or-renewal-note.md
cleanup.md
This set is intentionally minimal. Advanced exercises add CA database state, CRL, OCSP response, audit log, policy excerpt, role decision and incident timeline.
A.24 Quality Criteria
- The technical scope is clear before execution.
- The chain is technically verified, not only described.
- SAN, key usage, EKU and basic constraints are explicitly evaluated.
- Revocation and renewal are covered as lifecycle concerns.
- Private keys stay outside versioned content.
- Public standards are separated correctly: RFC 5280 describes profile and processing, the CA/Browser Forum governs publicly trusted server certificates, and NIST SP 800-57 informs key management and lifetimes.