7 ms·
Does your browser rejected revoked certificates?
In my testing, the latest (Desktop) Chrome, Opera, and IE do but on Android neither "Browser" or Chrome do. The upshot being that even with Heart Bleed patched and everyone revoking their potentially exposed certificates there is still a problem.
- yaur 13y agoIn my testing, the latest (Desktop) Chrome, Opera, and IE do but on Android neither "Browser" or Chrome do. The upshot being that even with Heart Bleed patched and everyone revoking their potentially exposed certificates there is still a problem.
- jasoncrawford 13y agoWow, latest version of Chrome (Mac) apparently is unaware of revoked certs. Firefox and Safari are aware.
- sirsar 13y agoChrome 33.0.1750.154 Windows rejects it with the "Check for server certificate revocation" setting enabled.
- federalemployee 13y agoMac version has that setting too. Here is a write up stating why Chrome doesn't do this by default: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/google-strips-chrome-of-ssl-revocation-checking/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/google-strips-chrome...
- jasoncrawford 13y agoYeah, I just found that setting. That works.
- dean 13y agoChrome 34.0.1847.116 m Windows rejects it even with the "Check for server certificate revocation" _disabled_
- train_robber 13y agoVersion 33.0.1750.152 on Ubuntu rejects with default settings for me. http://i.imgur.com/aQdu7GO.png http://i.imgur.com/aQdu7GO.png
- jhurwitz 13y agoIt looks like, as of February 2012, Chrome requires an update to receive a new revocation list: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html
- tjohns 13y agoEven though this is the default behavior, you can still ask Chrome to check directly for revoked certificates: Settings > HTTP/SSL > Check for server certificate revocation
- mikerg87 13y agoInteresting about safari. Mobile safari on my iPad let me pass right on to the page
- computer 13y agoThe site doesn't load here, what does it say?
- MatmaRex 13y agoI think that's the point. My browser (Opera 12) says "Unable to complete secure transaction" and "The certificate has been revoked by its issuer. It is no longer valid. In the worst case it may be used by criminals for fraudulent purposes. The website owner must immediately replace the certificate.".
- mivok 13y agoExplanation of exactly why chrome doesn't have 'Check for server certificate revocation' checked by default: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html The short version is that it's slow and not as effective as it might seem.
- TwoBit 13y agoFireFox (desktop and mobile) and Internet Explorer reject it. Chrome and Dolphin on Android fail to reject it.
- dublinben 13y agoFirefox on Android rejects it properly.
- sirdogealot 13y agoChromium tells me: Cannot connect to the real revoked.grc.com Something is currently interfering with your secure connection to revoked.grc.com. Try to reload this page in a few minutes or after switching to a new network. If you have recently connected to a new Wi-Fi network, finish logging in before reloading. If you were to visit revoked.grc.com right now, you might share private information with an attacker. To protect your privacy, Chrome will not load the page until it can establish a secure connection to the real revoked.grc.com. I pressed reload a few times after a few minutes and still see the same page. Am I doing it right or what?
- yaur 13y agoThis what you should see in a secure browser. The site was apparently provisioned with a pre-revoked certificate, so you shouldn't be able to connect to it. Though some browsers can.
- iamtew 13y agoIndeed, I'm getting the following in Firefox: An error occurred during a connection to revoked.grc.com. Peer's Certificate has been revoked. (Error code: sec_error_revoked_certificate)
- dredmorbius 13y ago"Cannot connect" from Chromium 33.0.1750.152 Debian jessie/sid (256984). Using w3m I get a page beginning with the following text: Security Certificate Revocation Awareness Test If you can see this (and apparently you can), you are using a revocation UNaware web browser! The SSL/TLS security certificate for this special website has been deliberately revoked. Since you are seeing this page, we know that this web browser is allowing a site with a known invalid certificate to display its pages. This is likely not the behavior you would choose. ...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- themartorana 13y agoGRC.com has been around for so long and it is just awesome. Don't know if this is still the case, but Steve Gibson either used to - or still does - write all of his software in assembly[1]. As a young comp sci college student in 1997, I can remember how insanely, blazingly fast his software and scanners seemed to run on my computer compared to all my other programs. He wrote about why he wrote in assembly and it was a huge inspiration to me as a young programmer. Yes, this is totally a fanboy post :) But it's cool to see Steve still popping up in relevant security news almost 20 years later. [1] https://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm https://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm
- mahmud 13y agoOh yes, he has been around for long. But he lost a bit of credibility after his wolf-cry when he campaigned against the inclusion of raw-sockets in Windows XP, alleging hackers might use it.
- exiva 13y agoOpera 20.0.1387.91 on OS X displays "The server's security certificate is revoked!" and won't let you through it seems. IE 10 on WP8.0 says "the certificate wasn't issued by a trusted certificate authority" but gives you the option to throw caution to the wind.
- pstrateman 13y agoCertificate revocation does not work. There are two methods of revoking a certificate, Certificate Revocation Lists and OCSP (Online Certificate Status Protocol). CRL lists do not scale at all and are almost universally do not include all revoked certificates (startssl implements this correctly which is why they charge $25 to revoke a certificate). OCSP is susceptible to a MitM attack (exactly the scenario in which you want it to work!). An attacker can simply block OCSP requests and nearly all current browsers will silently ignore the failure. They ignore such a failure because they are actually very common. The CA has to run an OCSP server that is queried continuously at high volume for no additional revenue, a model that doesn't exactly encourage robust operation. The only way to effectively revoke certificates in the numbers necessary after heartbleed is for the CAs to revoke their intermediary certs and have everybody get a new cert free of charge. Edit: for example here is the digicert CRL http://crl4.digicert.com/DigiCertHighAssuranceEVRootCA.crl http://crl4.digicert.com/DigiCertHighAssuranceEVRootCA.crl
- pstrateman 13y agoI should note that blocking OCSP requests will not cause revoked.grc.com to function. The server is using OCSP stapling, which means the OCSP certificate is being sent directly by the https server, an attack would obviously not be sending an OCSP response indicating the certificate was revoked....
- eurleif 13y agoWhy does OCSP stapling even exist?
- pstrateman 13y agoBecause querying the OCSP servers directly results in a crazy amount of traffic. Implemented in the most paranoid manner possible every https request would result in an OCSP request. That would be millions of requests per second for a large CA. They have effectively no financial interest in actually supporting that.
- SmileyKeith 13y agoWorks in Chrome 34.0.1847.116 on OS X once "Check for server certificate revocation" is checked (off by default as others have said).
- ama729 13y agoInterestingly, both Lynx and Wget don't throw any warning at all. It's really surprising for Lynx, you would think THE nerd browser would be a bit better security wise.
- e12e 13y agoI can't seem to find any command line tool (including openssl s_client) that will automatically "do the right thing". Curl, wget, w3m and lynx and "openssl s_client -connect revoked.grc.com:433" all happily connect without warning. So much for downloading install scripts over ssl...
- dredmorbius 13y agoNo, man, you've got to curl straight to bash. As root. God I fucking hate that.
- e12e 13y agoI guess that's one more reason to install an ssl unwrapping proxy -- allows you to log what comes sailing in over ssl (if you should be so inclined) -- and at least the proxy could make sure to drop connections to sites with revoked certs. It would make it more difficult to connect to sites that use alternative CAs/self-signed certs, though..
- e12e 13y agoOk, so gnutls-cli from libgnutls 3.2 has a --ocsp parameter, that turns on ocsp. And it sort of "works": $ gnutls-cli -p 443 --ocsp revoked.grc.com (..) Resolving 'revoked.grc.com'... Connecting to '4.79.142.205:443'... - Certificate type: X.509 - Got a certificate list of 2 certificates. - Certificate[0] info: (...) - Status: The certificate is trusted. Connecting to OCSP server: ocsp.digicert.com... Resolving 'ocsp.digicert.com'... Connecting to '93.184.220.29:80'... *** Verifying OCSP Response: Failure, Signature failure. *** OCSP response ignored ^^^^^^^ ! WTF? So, by working, I mean that it doesn't work.
- __david__ 13y agoSafari on iOS loaded the site with no warnings. Ouch—that's a lot of people.
- wanderr 13y agoChrome 36.0.1933.0 dev-m correctly complains even though I do not have "Check for server certificate revocation" enabled.
- enneff 13y agoSteve Gibson at it again. Lots of exclamation points, all caps, and colored text, but not a lot of substance. Chrome disabled cert revocation checks because they are easily bypassed: a MITM attacker can just block access to the CA's servers and the revocation check fails open. They instead opted for a more reliable method of pushing high profile revocations to the browser with software updates. These decisions are documented here: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html Notice how GRC doesn't give any actual details about how revocation checks are performed and the various advantages and disadvantages of doing them. In typical Gibson style, he is hyperbolic and cites no prior discussion. But of course these tactics do what they are designed to do: generate hysteria to get maximum page views.
- unlimitedbacon 13y agoI listen to his Security Now podcast on a regular basis and have always found it be be extremely thorough and informative. However, I have to agree with you that his website and writing style look like something you'd expect from someone who wears a tin foil hat. I also understand that he doesn't have much credibility in the wider security community. So I guess my question is, what do you guys think of the show and are there any alternatives you would recommend?
- danra 13y agoPost heartbleed, the right way to go is for all browsers to deny https access in case the OCSP check fails, not just ignore the failure. The CAs are those who should scramble to fix whatever doesn't work. Captive networks have to be configured to allow CA access, or just disallow https.
- nomailing 13y agoexactly. if access to a CA is blocked it is not good and I want a big red warning sign in my browser. what chrome is doing with their high profile website revocation by browser update is all bullshit.
- borplk 13y ago
- keehun 13y agoFirefox that I'm running seems to block the website.
- maccard 13y agoSafari 7.0.2 warned me, but let me proceed. Nightly 31.01a flat out blocks it. Don't have any other browsers to hand.
- pajtai 13y agoSeems like the browser should at least give a warning if it thinks the cert was revoked. You can see the green padlock AND the revocation in Chrome. http://s27.postimg.org/6cub79gbn/Screen_Shot_2014_04_13_at_10_19_21_PM.png http://s27.postimg.org/6cub79gbn/Screen_Shot_2014_04_13_at_1... or through: openssl s_client -connect revoked.grc.com:443 I mean from an end user perspective - irrespective of google's stance on revoked certs - it's very unexpected that the browser info about the cert is that it is revoked but the padlock is green --- oh okay, as some of the other comments points out, this puts it into some perspective: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html --- In Safari it won't let me get to the page w/o dire warnings.
- nomailing 13y agothe revocation check cannot easily get bypassed. if you block the Ca, then the check should definitely fail. this is not the same as saying it is bypassed.
- enneff 13y agoSo you're not even vaguely concerned about the privacy implications of telling the CA about every HTTPS connection you make? You don't care that if the CA goes down then the entire encrypted web stops working? Think.
- leni536 13y agoIs it a problem that curl and wget do not reject it?
- chacham15 13y agoThe real solution here is OCSP Stapling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCSP_stapling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCSP_stapling). It allows a server to present (i.e. 'staple') a signature specifying that the cert is still valid at the SSL handshake. Therefore, a legitimate connection with the server will also have the staple. The problem is that we need to make it standard to the point of "if the OCSP stapling is missing, then the cert should be rejected."
- rasz_pl 13y agoSecure connection: fatal error (44) Opera 12.16 Build 1860