Примеры использования Certification service provider на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
A certification service provider shall be liable for its failure to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1.
This Directive marks a significant advance because it introduces the notion of"signature certificates" and"certification service provider.
A certification service provider can also act as an applicant on behalf of a foreign producer.
To assure the authenticity of the certificate with respect to both its contents and its source, the certification service provider digitally signs it.
A certification service provider shall bear the legal consequences of its failure to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 1.
The authentication phase may rely on multiple levels of authenticating factors andmay require the participation of a third party as certification service provider.
The existence of a declaration by the State,an accreditation body or the certification service provider regarding compliance with or existence of the foregoing; or.
However, the Model Law sets out criteria against which to assess the conduct of those parties, i.e., the signatory,the relying party and the certification service provider.
In fact, subparagraph(1)(c)(ii) only required the certification service provider to offer"reasonably accessible means" which enabled the relying party to establish those facts.
It may be thought that the duties and obligations provided in article 9 can reasonably be expected to be complied with by any certification service provider, and not only those who issue"high value" certificates.
However, it was generally felt that a certification service provider could only be expected to state the identity of the person who held the signature creation data at the time a certificate was issued.
It was not foreseen that the effect of paragraph(2)would be to exclude the possibility for the certification service provider to prove, for example, the absence of fault or contributory fault.
In addition, the certification service provider is expected to exercise reasonable care to ensure the accuracy and completeness of all material representations it makes in connection with a certificate.
Depending on the technology being used, such a"relying party" may be not only a person who might seek to rely on the signature, butalso a person such as a certification service provider, a certificate revocation service provider and any other interested party.
As a minimum, the certification service provider as defined for the purposes of the Model Law would have to provide certification services, possibly together with other services ibid., para. 100.
With respect to paragraph 57, the view was expressed that thewords"Immediately upon suspending or revoking a certificate, the certification authority is generally expected to publish notice" might place an excessive burden on the certification service provider.
Where a certification service provider provides services to support an electronic signature that may be used for legal effect as a signature, that certification service provider shall.
The Working Group was generally in agreement with the view that it would not be appropriate to require from a signatory or a certification service provider a degree of diligence or trustworthiness that bore no reasonable relationship to the purposes for which the electronic signature or certificate was used.
Irrespective of whether certification authorities are operated by public entities or by private sector service providers, and of whether certification authorities would need to obtain a license to operate,there is typically more than one certification service provider operating within the PKI.
However, the Model Law does not require from a signatory or a certification service provider a degree of diligence or trustworthiness that bears no reasonable relationship to the purposes for which the electronic signature or certificate is used see above, para. 137.
If the private key is"compromised", for example through loss of control of the private key by the signatory, the certificate may lose its trustworthiness orbecome unreliable, and the certification service provider(at the signatory's request or even without the signatory's consent, depending on the circumstances) may suspend(temporarily interrupt the operational period) or revoke(permanently invalidate) the certificate.
In the deliberations, it was decided that the definition of"certification service provider" should emphasize that, in all cases, the certification service provider as defined would have to provide certification services, possibly together with other services. .
In connection with subparagraph(1)(d),the concern was expressed that the provision might impose upon the certification service provider the obligation to maintain lists of possibly compromised signature creation data or to issue notices in connection with notices to that effect received from signatories.
Subparagraph(1)(d)(v), however, only required the certification service provider to offer reasonably accessible means which enabled a relying party to ascertain whether there were means for the signatory to give notice that a signature device had been compromised.
Although the view was expressed that the duties andobligations provided in draft article 9 could reasonably be expected to be complied with by any certification service provider, and not only those who issued"high value" certificates, the Working Group favoured a solution which linked the obligations set forth in both articles 8 and 9 to the production of legally-significant electronic signatures.
To associate a key pair with a prospective signatory, a certification service provider(or certification authority) issues a certificate, an electronic record which lists a public key together with the name of the certificate subscriber as the"subject" of the certificate, and may confirm that the prospective signatory identified in the certificate holds the corresponding private key.
No distinction has been drawn in the Model Law between situations where a certification service provider engages in the provision of certification services as its main activity or as an ancillary business, on a habitual or an occasional basis, directly or through a subcontractor.
In the second case, they would be regarded as agents of the certification service providers, and the manner in which their duties andliability under draft article 9 was allocated was a matter to be dealt with in their contractual arrangements with the certification service provider.
The view was expressed that the Guide should make it clear that, where a certification service provider operated under the laws of a foreign State, possible limitations to the liability of the certification service provider should be assessed by reference to the law of that foreign State.
In response, it was recalled that paragraph(1)only required the certification service provider to offer reasonably accessible means which enabled a relying party to ascertain, where relevant, from the certificate or otherwise whether means existed for a signatory to give the notices in question.