Let's Encrypt: 30,229 Jan, 2018 | Let's Encrypt: 18,326 Jan, 2016 | Let's Encrypt: 330 Feb, 2017 | Let's Encrypt: 8,199
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Quantitative Verification of Gossip Protocols for Certificate Transparency
QUANTITATIVE VERIFICATION OF GOSSIP PROTOCOLS FOR CERTIFICATE TRANSPARENCY by MICHAEL COLIN OXFORD A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Computer Science College of Engineering and Physical Sciences University of Birmingham December 2020 2 Abstract Certificate transparency is a promising solution to publicly auditing Internet certificates. However, there is the potential of split-world attacks, where users are directed to fake versions of the log where they may accept fraudulent certificates. To ensure users are seeing the same version of a log, gossip protocols have been designed where users share and verify log-generated data. This thesis proposes a methodology of evaluating such protocols using probabilistic model checking, a collection of techniques for formally verifying properties of stochastic systems. It also describes the approach to modelling and verifying the protocols and analysing several aspects, including the success rate of detecting inconsistencies in gossip messages and its efficiency in terms of bandwidth. This thesis also compares different protocol variants and suggests ways to augment the protocol to improve performances, using model checking to verify the claims. To address uncertainty and unscalability issues within the models, this thesis shows how to transform models by allowing the probability of certain events to lie within a range of values, and abstract them to make the verification process more efficient. Lastly, by parameterising the models, this thesis shows how to search possible model configurations to find the worst-case behaviour for certain formal properties. 4 Acknowledgements To Auntie Mary and Nanny Lee. Writing this thesis could not have been accomplished after four tumultuous years alone. -
Colorado College Is Hiring!
Colorado College is hiring! Early Childhood Teacher (multiple positions available) - Children’s Center Under minimal supervision while in the classroom provide nurturing early care and educational experience to benefit the children and families of the CC Community. Design and implement age-appropriate individualized curriculum to foster growth and development socially, emotionally, physically and cognitively for each child. Be flexible, adaptive, reliable, and a confidential resource for families in an assigned classroom (infant, toddler or pre-school). Full position description: https://employment.coloradocollege.edu/postings/4697 OC (on call) Educational Assistant- Children’s Center Hours may vary Monday through Friday between 7:30 and 5:30 up to 1000 hours per fiscal year. Under general supervision, assists with providing on-site early childhood education and supervision for infants, toddlers and preschool children when teachers are sick and/or on vacation, teacher daily breaks, teacher daily planning times, daily kitchen duties, and working in the afterschool care program. Full position description: https://employment.coloradocollege.edu/postings/4607 Counselor (Occasional) Provide professional mental health services to the students of Colorado College. Positions Type: On Call Full position description: https://employment.coloradocollege.edu/postings/4746 Driver/Automotive Technician Performs maintenance and repair of college vehicles and maintenance equipment; drives fleet vehicles, including highway buses. Position Type: Full-time -
Certificate Transparency: New Part of PKI Infrastructure
Certificate transparency: New part of PKI infrastructure A presentation by Dmitry Belyavsky, TCI ENOG 7 Moscow, May 26-27, 2014 About PKI *) *) PKI (public-key infrastructure) is a set of hardware, software, people, policies, and procedures needed to create, manage, distribute, use, store, and revoke digital certificates Check the server certificate The server certificate signed correctly by any of them? Many trusted CAs NO YES Everything seems to We warn the user be ok! DigiNotar case OCSP requests for the fake *.google.com certificate Source: FOX-IT, Interim Report, http://cryptome.org/0005/diginotar-insec.pdf PKI: extra trust Independent Trusted PKI source certificate DANE (RFC 6698) Certificate pinning Limited browsers support Mozilla Certificate Patrol, Chrome cache for Google certificates Certificate transparency (RFC 6962) Inspired by Google (Support in Chrome appeared) One of the authors - Ben Laurie (OpenSSL Founder) CA support – Comodo Certificate Transparency: how it works • Log accepts cert => SCT Client • Is SCT present and signed correctly? Client • Is SCT present and signed correctly? Auditor • Does log server behave correctly? Monitor • Any suspicious certs? Certificate Transparency: how it works Source: http://www.certificate-transparency.org Certificate Transparency how it works Source: http://www.certificate-transparency.org Certificate Transparency current state Google Chrome Support (33+) http://www.certificate-transparency.org/certificate-transparency-in-chrome Google Cert EV plan http://www.certificate-transparency.org/ev-ct-plan Certificate Transparency current state Open source code 2 pilot logs Certificate Transparency: protect from what? SAVE from MITM attack ü Warning from browser ü Site owner can watch logs for certs Do NOT SAVE from HEARTBLEED! Certificate transparency and Russian GOST crypto Russian GOST does not save from the MITM attack Algorithm SHA-256 >>> GOSTR34.11-2012 Key >>> GOST R 34.10-2012 Q&A Questions? Drop ‘em at: [email protected] . -
An Empirical Analysis of Email Delivery Security
Neither Snow Nor Rain Nor MITM . An Empirical Analysis of Email Delivery Security Zakir Durumeric† David Adrian† Ariana Mirian† James Kasten† Elie Bursztein‡ Nicolas Lidzborski‡ Kurt Thomas‡ Vijay Eranti‡ Michael Bailey§ J. Alex Halderman† † University of Michigan ‡ Google, Inc. § University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign {zakir, davadria, amirian, jdkasten, jhalderm}@umich.edu {elieb, nlidz, kurtthomas, vijaye}@google.com [email protected] ABSTRACT tolerate unprotected communication at the expense of user security. The SMTP protocol is responsible for carrying some of users’ most Equally problematic, users face a medium that fails to alert clients intimate communication, but like other Internet protocols, authen- when messages traverse an insecure path and that lacks a mechanism tication and confidentiality were added only as an afterthought. In to enforce strict transport security. this work, we present the first report on global adoption rates of In this work, we measure the global adoption of SMTP security SMTP security extensions, including: STARTTLS, SPF, DKIM, and extensions and the resulting impact on end users. Our study draws DMARC. We present data from two perspectives: SMTP server from two unique perspectives: longitudinal SMTP connection logs configurations for the Alexa Top Million domains, and over a year spanning from January 2014 to April 2015 for Gmail, one of the of SMTP connections to and from Gmail. We find that the top mail world’s largest mail providers; and a snapshot of SMTP server providers (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo, -
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 -
Product End User License Agreement
End User License Agreement If you have another valid, signed agreement with Licensor or a Licensor authorized reseller which applies to the specific products or services you are downloading, accessing, or otherwise receiving, that other agreement controls; otherwise, by using, downloading, installing, copying, or accessing Software, Maintenance, or Consulting Services, or by clicking on "I accept" on or adjacent to the screen where these Master Terms may be displayed, you hereby agree to be bound by and accept these Master Terms. These Master Terms also apply to any Maintenance or Consulting Services you later acquire from Licensor relating to the Software. You may place orders under these Master Terms by submitting separate Order Form(s). Capitalized terms used in the Agreement and not otherwise defined herein are defined at https://terms.tibco.com/posts/845635-definitions. 1. Applicability. These Master Terms represent one component of the Agreement for Licensor's products, services, and partner programs and apply to the commercial arrangements between Licensor and Customer (or Partner) listed below. Additional terms referenced below shall apply. a. Products: i. Subscription, Perpetual, or Term license Software ii. Cloud Service (Subject to the Cloud Service Terms found at https://terms.tibco.com/?types%5B%5D=post&feed=recent#cloud-services) iii. Equipment (Subject to the Equipment Terms found at https://terms.tibco.com/?types%5B%5D=post&feed=recent#equipment-terms) b. Services: i. Maintenance (Subject to the Maintenance terms found at https://terms.tibco.com/?types%5B%5D=post&feed=recent#october-maintenance) ii. Consulting Services (Subject to the Consulting terms found at https://terms.tibco.com/?types%5B%5D=post&feed=recent#supplemental-terms) iii. -
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. -
Learning HTTP 2.Pdf
L e a r n i n g H T T P/2 A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR BEGINNERS Stephen Ludin & Javier Garza Learning HTTP/2 A Practical Guide for Beginners Stephen Ludin and Javier Garza Beijing Boston Farnham Sebastopol Tokyo Learning HTTP/2 by Stephen Ludin and Javier Garza Copyright © 2017 Stephen Ludin, Javier Garza. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Published by O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472. O’Reilly books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. Online editions are also available for most titles (http://oreilly.com/safari). For more information, contact our corporate/insti‐ tutional sales department: 800-998-9938 or [email protected]. Acquisitions Editor: Brian Anderson Indexer: Wendy Catalano Editors: Virginia Wilson and Dawn Schanafelt Interior Designer: David Futato Production Editor: Shiny Kalapurakkel Cover Designer: Karen Montgomery Copyeditor: Kim Cofer Illustrator: Rebecca Demarest Proofreader: Sonia Saruba June 2017: First Edition Revision History for the First Edition 2017-05-14: First Release 2017-10-27: Second Release See http://oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=9781491962442 for release details. The O’Reilly logo is a registered trademark of O’Reilly Media, Inc. Learning HTTP/2, the cover image, and related trade dress are trademarks of O’Reilly Media, Inc. While the publisher and the authors have used good faith efforts to ensure that the information and instructions contained in this work are accurate, the publisher and the authors disclaim all responsibility for errors or omissions, including without limitation responsibility for damages resulting from the use of or reliance on this work. -
Practical Issues with TLS Client Certificate Authentication
Practical Issues with TLS Client Certificate Authentication Arnis Parsovs Software Technology and Applications Competence Center, Estonia University of Tartu, Estonia [email protected] Abstract—The most widely used secure Internet communication Active security research is being conducted to improve standard TLS (Transport Layer Security) has an optional client password security, educate users on how to resist phishing certificate authentication feature that in theory has significant attacks, and to fix CA trust issues [1], [2]. However, the attacks security advantages over HTML form-based password authenti- mentioned above can be prevented or their impact can be cation. In this paper we discuss practical security and usability greatly reduced by using TLS client certificate authentication issues related to TLS client certificate authentication stemming (CCA), since the TLS CCA on the TLS protocol level protects from the server-side and browser implementations. In particular, we analyze Apache’s mod_ssl implementation on the server the client’s account on a legitimate server from a MITM side and the most popular browsers – Mozilla Firefox, Google attacker even in the case of a very powerful attacker who has Chrome and Microsoft Internet Explorer on the client side. We obtained a valid certificate signed by a trusted CA and who complement our paper with a measurement study performed in thus is able to impersonate the legitimate server. We believe Estonia where TLS client certificate authentication is widely used. that TLS CCA has great potential for improving Internet We present our recommendations to improve the security and security, and therefore in this paper we discuss current issues usability of TLS client certificate authentication. -
Caddy Et Traefik : Des Concurrents Sérieux À Nginx Et Haproxy ? Mickaël Masquelin | Quelques Mots Sur Le Laboratoire …
Caddy et Traefik : des concurrents sérieux à nginx et HAProxy ? Mickaël Masquelin | Quelques mots sur le laboratoire … • Unité Mixte de Recherche • 5 tutelles : • Le CNRS • L’Université de Lille • L’Université de Polytechnique HdF • L’Ecole Centrale • Le groupe YNCREA – ISEN • 6 sites géographiquement distants • Environ 500 personnes (chercheurs, ingénieurs, administratifs, étudiants, …) Mickaël Masquelin – IEMN 10/03/2018 2 Journée thématique “Retours d’expériences” Les objectifs Mickaël Masquelin – IEMN 10/03/2018 3 Journée thématique “Retours d’expériences” RETOUR D’EXPERIENCE SUR CES NOUVELLES APPLIS WEB QUI FACILITENT LA VIE L’idée est de faire un retour d’expérience sur ces nouvelles applications web qui pointent le bout de leur nez et qui viennent révolutionner un peu le paysage informatique … Les objectifs Mickaël Masquelin – IEMN 10/03/2018 4 Journée thématique “Retours d’expériences” RETOUR D’EXPERIENCE SUR CES NOUVELLES APPLIS WEB QUI FACILITENT LA VIE L’idée est de faire un retour d’expérience sur ces nouvelles applications web qui pointent le bout de leur nez et qui viennent révolutionner un peu le paysage informatique … ESSAYER DE VOUS DONNER QUELQUES PISTES J’espère que vous repartirez de la journée thématique avec pleins d’idées, des envies de changer la manière dont vous travaillez, dont vous déployez vos applications ou vos Les objectifs services dans vos contextes respectifs … Mickaël Masquelin – IEMN 10/03/2018 5 Journée thématique “Retours d’expériences” RETOUR D’EXPERIENCE SUR CES NOUVELLES APPLIS WEB QUI FACILITENT -
Introduction
HTTP Request Smuggling in 2020 – New Variants, New Defenses and New Challenges Amit Klein SafeBreach Labs Introduction HTTP Request Smuggling (AKA HTTP Desyncing) is an attack technique that exploits different interpretations of a stream of non-standard HTTP requests among various HTTP devices between the client (attacker) and the server (including the server itself). Specifically, the attacker manipulates the way various HTTP devices split the stream into individual HTTP requests. By doing this, the attacker can “smuggle” a malicious HTTP request through an HTTP device to the server abusing the discrepancy in the interpretation of the stream of requests and desyncing between the server’s view of the HTTP request (and response) stream and the intermediary HTTP device’s view of these streams. In this way, for example, the malicious HTTP request can be "smuggled" as a part of the previous HTTP request. HTTP Request Smuggling was invented in 2005, and recently, additional research cropped up. This research field is still not fully explored, especially when considering open source defense systems such as mod_security’s community rule-set (CRS). These HTTP Request Smuggling defenses are rudimentary and not always effective. My Contribution My contribution is three-fold. I explore new attacks and defense mechanisms, and I provide some “challenges”. 1. New attacks: I provide some new HTTP Request Smuggling variants and show how they work against various proxy-server (or proxy-proxy) combinations. I also found a bypass for mod_security CRS (assuming HTTP Request Smuggling is possible without it). An attack demonstration script implementing my payloads is available in SafeBreach Labs’ GitHub repository (https://github.com/SafeBreach-Labs/HRS). -
Can a TLS Certificate Be Phishy?
Can a TLS Certificate Be Phishy? Kaspar Hageman1, Egon Kidmose1, Rene´ Rydhof Hansen2 and Jens Myrup Pedersen1 1Department of Electronic System, Aalborg University, Denmark 2Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Denmark Keywords: Phishing, Digital Certificate, Certificate Transparency, TLS. Abstract: This paper investigates the potential of using digital certificates for the detection of phishing domains. This is motivated by phishing domains that have started to abuse the (erroneous) trust of the public in browser padlock symbols, and by the large-scale adoption of the Certificate Transparency (CT) framework. This publicly accessible evidence trail of Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates has made the TLS landscape more transparent than ever. By comparing samples of phishing, popular benign, and non-popular benign domains, we provide insight into the TLS certificates issuance behavior for phishing domains, focusing on the selection of the certificate authority, the validation level of the certificates, and the phenomenon of certificate sharing among phishing domains. Our results show that phishing domains gravitate to a relatively small selection of certificate authorities, and disproportionally to cPanel, and tend to rely on certificates with a low, and cheap, validation level. Additionally, we demonstrate that the vast majority of certificates issued for phishing domains cover more than only phishing domains. These results suggest that a more pro-active role of CAs and putting more emphasis on certificate revocation can have a crucial impact in the defense against phishing attacks. 1 INTRODUCTION web browsers and web servers. It raises the research question on whether TLS certificates can be labeled as Decades after its inception in the ’90s, phishing re- ‘phishy’ or benign in the same manner URLs and do- mains a significant problem.