3 ms·
Bad SSL certificate found on cnn.com
- svenfaw 10y agoThe CNN issue looks like some type of CDN screwup, but the real bad thing is that this single cert covers all of the below domains: a.ssl.fastly.net *.a.ssl.fastly.net fast.wistia.com purge.fastly.net mirrors.fastly.net *.parsecdn.com *.fastssl.net voxer.com www.voxer.com *.firebase.com sites.yammer.com sites.staging.yammer.com *.skimlinks.com *.skimresources.com cdn.thinglink.me *.fitbit.com *.hosts.fastly.net control.fastly.net *.wikia-inc.com *.perfectaudience.com *.wikia.com f.cloud.github.com *.digitalscirocco.net *.etsy.com *.etsystatic.com *.addthis.com *.addthiscdn.com fast.wistia.net raw.github.com www.userfox.com *.assets-yammer.com *.staging.assets-yammer.com assets.huggies-cdn.net orbit.shazamid.com about.jstor.org *.global.ssl.fastly.net web.voxer.com pypi.python.org *.12wbt.com www.holderdeord.no secured.indn.infolinks.com play.vidyard.com play-staging.vidyard.com secure.img.wfrcdn.com secure.img.josscdn.com *.gocardless.com widgets.pinterest.com *.7digital.com *.7static.com p.datadoghq.com new.mulberry.com www.safariflow.com cdn.contentful.com tools.fastly.net *.huevosbuenos.com *.goodeggs.com *.fastly.picmonkey.com *.cdn.whipplehill.net *.whipplehill.net cdn.media34.whipplehill.net cdn.media56.whipplehill.net cdn.media78.whipplehill.net cdn.media910.whipplehill.net *.modcloth.com *.disquscdn.com *.jstor.org *.dreamhost.com www.flinto.com *.chartbeat.com *.hipmunk.com content.beaverbrooks.co.uk secure.common.csnstores.com www.joinos.com staging-mobile-collector.newrelic.com *.modcloth.net *.foursquare.com *.shazam.com *.4sqi.net *.metacpan.org *.fastly.com wikia.com fastly.com *.gadventures.com www.gadventures.com.au www.gadventures.co.uk kredo.com cdn-tags.brainient.com my.billspringapp.com rvm.io WTF, Digicert? Full details can be viewed at: https://www.censys.io/certificates/ca5c57bee6ab21c055dcdbe8ad25feef6d1764a92e2aaaadb5d55fb667c3f8ac https://www.censys.io/certificates/ca5c57bee6ab21c055dcdbe8a...
- detaro 10y agoCDNs sharing certs between many clients is not unusual, is there anything particularly bad about this practice? It increases the risk if one certificate is broken, but if it is stolen an attacker likely could have stolen a set of individual certificates as well.