Certificate Authority Trust List
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Paypal's Security
PayPal’s Security Key PayPal is a great service for enabling both businesses and consumers to buy and sell goods and services online without exposing private financial information to the other parties in a transaction. As a consumer, you can safely purchase goods and services online without exposing your credit or debit card information to be recorded and possibly misused. As a business, you can be paid for your goods or services using the Web or email without the need of storing your customer’s private financial information. A big concern with PayPal is that anyone who knows the password of your PayPal account can access the financial services that you have authorized to be used with PayPal. For consumers, this means that unauthorized purchases or cash transfer may be performed from your credit cards and bank accounts. As a business, unauthorized PayPal access can be a source of fraudulent purchases. Password security is always the responsibility of the PayPal account holder; but now PayPal has a service to make the disclosure of your PayPal password an almost insignificant threat. In February 2007, PayPal introduced an optional security key system for users to access their PayPal accounts. The security key does not replace your PayPal password; instead, it adds an extra layer of security by requiring an additional security code be entered with your password when you log into your PayPal account. What makes this security code so different from a password is that it randomly generated by a small, electronic device called a security token, which is a key fob that easily fits in the palm of your hand. -
Using Frankencerts for Automated Adversarial Testing of Certificate
Using Frankencerts for Automated Adversarial Testing of Certificate Validation in SSL/TLS Implementations Chad Brubaker ∗ y Suman Janay Baishakhi Rayz Sarfraz Khurshidy Vitaly Shmatikovy ∗Google yThe University of Texas at Austin zUniversity of California, Davis Abstract—Modern network security rests on the Secure Sock- many open-source implementations of SSL/TLS are available ets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocols. for developers who need to incorporate SSL/TLS into their Distributed systems, mobile and desktop applications, embedded software: OpenSSL, NSS, GnuTLS, CyaSSL, PolarSSL, Ma- devices, and all of secure Web rely on SSL/TLS for protection trixSSL, cryptlib, and several others. Several Web browsers against network attacks. This protection critically depends on include their own, proprietary implementations. whether SSL/TLS clients correctly validate X.509 certificates presented by servers during the SSL/TLS handshake protocol. In this paper, we focus on server authentication, which We design, implement, and apply the first methodology for is the only protection against man-in-the-middle and other large-scale testing of certificate validation logic in SSL/TLS server impersonation attacks, and thus essential for HTTPS implementations. Our first ingredient is “frankencerts,” synthetic and virtually any other application of SSL/TLS. Server authen- certificates that are randomly mutated from parts of real cer- tication in SSL/TLS depends entirely on a single step in the tificates and thus include unusual combinations of extensions handshake protocol. As part of its “Server Hello” message, and constraints. Our second ingredient is differential testing: if the server presents an X.509 certificate with its public key. -
Installing Fake Root Keys in a PC
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Royal Holloway - Pure Installing Fake Root Keys in a PC Adil Alsaid and Chris J. Mitchell Information Security Group Royal Holloway, University of London Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX fA.Alsaid, [email protected] Abstract. If a malicious party can insert a self-issued CA public key into the list of root public keys stored in a PC, then this party could potentially do considerable harm to that PC. In this paper, we present a way to achieve such an attack for the Internet Explorer web browser root key store, which avoids attracting the user's attention. A realisation of this attack is also described. Finally, countermeasures that can be deployed to prevent such an attack are outlined. 1 Introduction As is widely known [10], most web browsers (e.g. Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape) have a repository of root public keys designed for use in verify- ing digitally signed public key certi¯cates. These public keys are bundled with distributions of the web browser, and are used to verify certi¯cates for applet providers [13]. Speci¯cally, web-sites may download applets to a user PC without the PC user knowing it. Depending on the security settings selected by the PC user, these applets may be executed with or without further checks. Typically, the browser will only execute the applet if the following conditions are satis¯ed. 1. The applet must be digitally signed, and the signature must verify correctly. 2. -
Zoom Go Boom!
Security Now! Transcript of Episode #761 Page 1 of 21 Transcript of Episode #761 Zoom Go Boom! Description: This week starts off with a bunch of web browser news including Firefox zero-days, Safari's recent scrape, more coronavirus-related feature rollbacks, the status of TLS v1.0 and 1.1, and some interesting developments on the Edge front. We revisit the lingering STIR and SHAKEN telco protocol mess, then look at a new DNS-filtering add-on service from Cloudflare and at the growing influence of an Internet group hoping to tighten up the mess with BGP. After a quick update on my SpinRite project, we take a look at what's been going on with the security of Zoom, the suddenly chosen tool for hosting Internet virtual classrooms and meetings of all kinds. High quality (64 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/SN-761.mp3 Quarter size (16 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/sn-761-lq.mp3 SHOW TEASE: It's time for Security Now!. Steve Gibson is here. Lots to talk about including a Mozilla Firefox zero-day. It's been fixed, but just barely. A problem with Safari. BGP gets some MANRS. And what's wrong with Zoom, and a pretty good alternative. It's all coming up next on Security Now!. Leo Laporte: This is Security Now! with Steve Gibson, Episode 761, recorded Tuesday, April 7th, 2020: Zoom Go Boom! It's time for Security Now!, the show where we cover your security and privacy and safety and quarantine online. -
Analysis of SSL Certificate Reissues and Revocations in the Wake
Analysis of SSL Certificate Reissues and Revocations in the Wake of Heartbleed Liang Zhang David Choffnes Dave Levin Tudor Dumitra¸s Northeastern University Northeastern University University of Maryland University of Maryland [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Alan Mislove Aaron Schulman Christo Wilson Northeastern University Stanford University Northeastern University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Categories and Subject Descriptors Central to the secure operation of a public key infrastruc- C.2.2 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Net- ture (PKI) is the ability to revoke certificates. While much work Protocols; C.2.3 [Computer-Communication Net- of users' security rests on this process taking place quickly, works]: Network Operations; E.3 [Data Encryption]: in practice, revocation typically requires a human to decide Public Key Cryptosystems, Standards to reissue a new certificate and revoke the old one. Thus, having a proper understanding of how often systems admin- istrators reissue and revoke certificates is crucial to under- Keywords standing the integrity of a PKI. Unfortunately, this is typi- Heartbleed; SSL; TLS; HTTPS; X.509; Certificates; Reissue; cally difficult to measure: while it is relatively easy to deter- Revocation; Extended validation mine when a certificate is revoked, it is difficult to determine whether and when an administrator should have revoked. In this paper, we use a recent widespread security vul- 1. INTRODUCTION nerability as a natural experiment. Publicly announced in Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Secu- April 2014, the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug, potentially (and rity (TLS)1 are the de-facto standards for securing Internet undetectably) revealed servers' private keys. -
2015 AGM Minutes
OARC Annual General Meeting 3rd October 2015 - Minutes Date: Saturday 3rd October 2015 Location: Fairmont Queen Elizabeth, 900 Rene Levesque Blvd. W Montreal, Quebec H3B 4A5, Canada Chair: Ondrej Filip Secretary: Keith Mitchell Attendees Registered: 138 In person: 130, Remote: 7 Name Institution ISA, Saib CLEMENTS, Carl Afilias ROY, Jean Akamai Technologies LAWRENCE, David Akamai Technologies APRIL, Tim Akamai Technologies MILLER, Donavan Amazon ROBIN, Noah AOL DETWEILER, Valerie AOL HUSTON, Geoff APNIC BJØRN HANSEN, Ask Apple JEFFERS, David ARIN MIZELLE, Devon ARIN ROWLEY, Matt ARIN KE, Qiang BII KERR, Shane BII SILVA DAMAS, Joao Luis Bond Internet Systems JOHNSON, Aaron Charter Communications LIU, Charlie Charter Communications CONNELL, Isaiah Charter Communications SRIRAM, Ajay Charter Communications ZHANG, Tongfeng CIRA THOMPSON, Evan CIRA ZACK, Jacob CIRA LATOUR, Jacques CIRA STEWART, Jonathan CIRA SWAIN, Amanda CIRA MALENFANT, Eric CIRA CHANTIGNY, Rock CIRA BOOS, Roy Cisco Systems KWONG, David Cisco Systems VALSORDA, Filippo Cloudflare GUÐMUNDSSON, Ólafur CloudFlare ZHANG, Mingkai CNNIC XINYUE, Zhang CNNIC PAN, Lanlan CNNIC HAGOPIAN, Peter Comcast BARNITZ, John Comcast EBERSMAN, Paul Comcast HLAVACEK, Tomas CZ.NIC FILIP, Ondrej CZ.NIC SURÝ, Ondřej CZ.NIC PETRASCH, Christian DENIC BHABUTA, Denesh DNS-OARC KHEMLANI, Dalini DNS-OARC GRAVES, Susan DNS-OARC SOTOMAYOR, William DNS-OARC MITCHELL, Keith DNS-OARC DUARTE, Eduardo DNS.PT ROBERTS, Bruce DomainTools ALLEN, David Dyn GRAY, Robert Dyn COWIE, James Dyn HYNES, Liam Dyn KNIGHT, Dave -
Analysis of SSL Certificate Reissues And
Analysis of SSL Certificate Reissues and Revocations in the Wake of Heartbleed Liang Zhang David Choffnes Dave Levin Tudor Dumitra¸s Northeastern University Northeastern University University of Maryland University of Maryland [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Alan Mislove Aaron Schulman Christo Wilson Northeastern University Stanford University Northeastern University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Categories and Subject Descriptors Central to the secure operation of a public key infrastruc- C.2.2 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Net- ture (PKI) is the ability to revoke certificates. While much work Protocols; C.2.3 [Computer-Communication Net- of users' security rests on this process taking place quickly, works]: Network Operations; E.3 [Data Encryption]: in practice, revocation typically requires a human to decide Public Key Cryptosystems, Standards to reissue a new certificate and revoke the old one. Thus, having a proper understanding of how often systems admin- istrators reissue and revoke certificates is crucial to under- Keywords standing the integrity of a PKI. Unfortunately, this is typi- Heartbleed; SSL; TLS; HTTPS; X.509; Certificates; Reissue; cally difficult to measure: while it is relatively easy to deter- Revocation; Extended validation mine when a certificate is revoked, it is difficult to determine whether and when an administrator should have revoked. In this paper, we use a recent widespread security vul- 1. INTRODUCTION nerability as a natural experiment. Publicly announced in Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Secu- April 2014, the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug, potentially (and rity (TLS)1 are the de-facto standards for securing Internet undetectably) revealed servers' private keys. -
Certificate Transparency Using Blockchain
Certicate Transparency Using Blockchain D S V Madala1, Mahabir Prasad Jhanwar1, and Anupam Chattopadhyay2 1Department of Computer Science. Ashoka University, India 2School of Computer Science and Engineering. NTU, Singapore Abstract The security of web communication via the SSL/TLS protocols relies on safe distribu- tions of public keys associated with web domains in the form of X:509 certicates. Certicate authorities (CAs) are trusted third parties that issue these certicates. However, the CA ecosystem is fragile and prone to compromises. Starting with Google's Certicate Trans- parency project, a number of research works have recently looked at adding transparency for better CA accountability, eectively through public logs of all certicates issued by certica- tion authorities, to augment the current X:509 certicate validation process into SSL/TLS. In this paper, leveraging recent progress in blockchain technology, we propose a novel system, called CTB, that makes it impossible for a CA to issue a certicate for a domain without obtaining consent from the domain owner. We further make progress to equip CTB with certicate revocation mechanism. We implement CTB using IBM's Hyperledger Fabric blockchain platform. CTB's smart contract, written in Go, is provided for complete reference. 1 Introduction The overwhelming adoption of SSL/TLS (Secure Socket Layer/Transport Layer Security Proto- cols) [4, 33] for most HTTP trac has transformed the Internet into a communication platform with strong measures of condentiality and integrity. It is one -
Public Key Distribution (And Certifications)
Lecture 12 Public Key Distribution (and Certifications) (Chapter 15 in KPS) 1 A Typical KDC-based Key Distribution Scenario KDC = Key Distribution Center KDC EK[X] = Encryption of X with key K (1) Request|B|N1 (2) E [K |Request|N |E (K ,A)] Ka s 1 Kb s (3) E [K ,A] Kb s A (4) E [A,N ] Ks 2 B Notes: (5) E [f(N )] Ks 2 • Msg2 is tied to Msg1 • Msg2 is fresh/new • Msg3 is possibly old * • Msg1 is possibly old (KDC doesn’t authenticate Alice) • Bob authenticates Alice • Bob authenticates KDC 2 • Alice DOES NOT authenticate Bob Public Key Distribution • General Schemes: • Public announcement (e.g., in a newsgroup or email message) • Can be forged • Publicly available directory • Can be tampered with • Public-key certificates (PKCs) issued by trusted off-line Certification Authorities (CAs) 3 Certification Authorities • Certification Authority (CA): binds public key to a specific entity • Each entity (user, host, etc.) registers its public key with CA. • Bob provides “proof of identity” to CA. • CA creates certificate binding Bob to this public key. • Certificate containing Bob’s public key digitally signed by CA: CA says: “this is Bob’s public key” Bob’s digital PK public signature B key PK B certificate for Bob’s CA Bob’s private SK public key, signed by identifying key CA CA information 4 Certification Authority • When Alice wants to get Bob’s public key: • Get Bob’s certificate (from Bob or elsewhere) • Using CA’s public key verify the signature on Bob’s certificate • Check for expiration • Check for revocation (we’ll talk about this later) • Extract Bob’s public key Bob’s PK B digital Public signature Key PK B CA Public PK Key CA 5 A Certificate Contains • Serial number (unique to issuer) • Info about certificate owner, including algorithm and key value itself (not shown) • info about certificate issuer • valid dates • digital signature by issuer 6 Reflection Attack and a Fix • Original Protocol 1. -
Certificate Transparency Description
Certificate Transparency Description Certificate Transparency is an experimental protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates as they are issued or observed, in a manner that allows anyone to audit certificate authority (CA) activity and notice the issuance of suspect certificates as well as to audit the certificate logs themselves. The intent is that eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued certificates to the logs. Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for submissions and queries that are defined in this document. (q.v. IETF RFC 6962) The objectives are described as: Make it very difficult for a CA to issue a TLS certificate for a domain without the certificate being visible to the owner of that domain. Provide an open auditing and monitoring system that lets any domain owner or CA determine whether certificates have been mistakenly or maliciously issued. Protect users from being duped by certificates that were mistakenly or maliciously issued. (q.v. https://www.certificate-transparency.org/what-is-ct) Note that end user TLS clients are not responsible for validating CT logs, all they need to do is enforce a requirement that certificates must have extensions that show that they were issued under these procedures by validating a Signed Certificate Timestamp (SCT) data object presented with the TLS server certificate. Monitors and Auditors have the primary responsibility of detecting anomalous certificates that were never submitted to the logs. According to wikipedia, the implementation status of the standard is as follows: Google launched its first certificate transparency log in March 2013. -
Trust Me, I'm a Root CA! Analyzing SSL Root Cas in Modern Browsers
Trust me, I’m a Root CA! Analyzing SSL Root CAs in modern Browsers and Operating Systems Tariq Fadai, Sebastian Schrittwieser Peter Kieseberg, Martin Mulazzani Josef Ressel Center for Unified Threat Intelligence SBA Research, on Targeted Attacks, Austria St. Poelten University of Applied Sciences, Austria Email: [pkieseberg,mmulazzani]@sba-research.org Email: [is101005,sebastian.schrittwieser]@fhstp.ac.at Abstract—The security and privacy of our online communi- tected communications is dependent on the trustworthiness cations heavily relies on the entity authentication mechanisms of various companies and governments. It is therefore of provided by SSL. Those mechanisms in turn heavily depend interest to find out which companies we implicitly trust just on the trustworthiness of a large number of companies and governmental institutions for attestation of the identity of SSL by using different operating system platforms or browsers. services providers. In order to offer a wide and unobstructed In this paper an analysis of the root certificates included in availability of SSL-enabled services and to remove the need various browsers and operating systems is introduced. Our to make a large amount of trust decisions from their users, main contributions are: operating systems and browser manufactures include lists of certification authorities which are trusted for SSL entity • We performed an in-depth analysis of Root Certifi- authentication by their products. This has the problematic cate Authorities in modern operating systems and web effect that users of such browsers and operating systems browsers implicitly trust those certification authorities with the privacy • We correlated them against a variety of trust indexes of their communications while they might not even realize it. -
The Trip to TLS Land Using the WSA Tobias Mayer, Consulting Systems Engineer BRKSEC-3006 Me…
The Trip to TLS Land using the WSA Tobias Mayer, Consulting Systems Engineer BRKSEC-3006 Me… CCIE Security #14390, CISSP & Motorboat driving license… Working in Content Security & IPv6 Security tmayer{at}cisco.com Writing stuff at “blogs.cisco.com” Agenda • Introduction • Understanding TLS • Configuring Decryption on the WSA • Troubleshooting TLS • Thoughts about the Future • Conclusion For Your Reference • There are (many...) slides in your print-outs that will not be presented. • They are there “For your Reference” For Your Reference Microsoft and Google pushing encryption • Microsoft pushing TLS with PFS • Google, FB, Twitter encrypting all traffic • HTTPS usage influencing page ranking on google • Deprecate SHA1, only SHA2+ • Browser Vendors aggressively pushing https • Problems with older TLS versions leading to upgrade of servers to newer protocols and ciphers • Poodle, Freak, Beast, …. Google Search Engine • Google ranking influenced by using HTTPS • http://blog.searchmetrics.com/us/2015 /03/03/https-vs-http-website-ssl-tls- encryption-ranking-seo-secure- connection/ Understanding TLS TLS Versions • SSLv3, 1996 • TLS 1.0, 1999, RFC2246 • TLS 1.1, 2006, RFC4346 • Improved security • TLS 1.2, 2008, RFC5246 • Removed IDEA and DES ciphers • Stronger hashes • Supports authenticated encryption ciphers (AES-GCM) • TLS 1.3, currently Internet Draft Attacks… • POODLE • SSLv3 Problems with Padding, turn of SSLv3 • BEAST • Know issues in CBC mode, use TLS 1.1/1.2 with non-CBC mode ciphers (GCM) • CRIME/BREACH • Compression Data Leak, disable