4 ms·

I'm glad to see people move off old browsers, in general. SHA1 is far from the biggest problem with Windows XP SP2; in fact, I'd probably say SHA1 is one of th

by rdl 12y ago

I'm glad to see people move off old browsers, in general. SHA1 is far from the biggest problem with Windows XP SP2; in fact, I'd probably say SHA1 is one of the most secure aspects of the OS. The actual weaknesses in SHA1 which have been identified are very serious, but still requiring on the order of 2^61 operations to cause a collision, and there is a fairly indirect path between hash collision and end of the world for many protocols. The problem I have is how Google is doing this. There was a pretty clearly announced date. Google used a random browser meeting's minutes to make what is essentially a major policy change, and then assumed CAs would notify their customers. The victims here are end users and site operators; CAs benefit because people buy new certs (and at worst, it's customers who have already bought something which breaks...). There was no real incentive for CAs to communicate with sites, and they're not really known as responsive businesses anyway. Doing this with effect during the holiday season is kind of the definition of dick move. Pushing it out 6 mo wouldn't have appreciably hurt the SHA1 migration efforts, but would have dramatically reduced pain for end users and site admins. Providing direct notice to the world (such as this blog post), so users and site admins would actually see it, is how notice should be given; not an obscure forum or relying on CAs with no business interest.

agl 12y ago
This was already announced by Microsoft last year: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/2880823.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/2880823... Unfortunately, many CAs decided to ignore it, presumably on the assumption that Microsoft would be forced to back down. We've done this dance with MD5 and 1024-bit certificates and we know how it goes. Here's a quick list of CAs that issued more than 2000 certificates extending into 2017 with SHA-1: GlobalSign nv-sa: 75,312 GoDaddy: 41,606 GeoTrust: 40,429 Comodo: 37,789 Verisign: 34,927 Terena: 9,444 Thawte: 8,735 Internet2: 8,637 Network Solutions: 8,077 Entrust: 5,542 AlphaSSL: 3,458 We would all have liked CAs to have acted either when the Baseline was updated (2011) or when Microsoft laid down dates (Nov 2013) or when Chrome talked about doing this at the CA/B Forum meeting earlier this year. It is unfortunate that that 2016/2017 dates are being ignored. If you run a site and want to be insulated from this sort you might want to consider getting one year certificates. CAs like to sell multiple years of course but doing renewal once every three (or more) years means that you have a significant risk of loosing the institutional knowledge of how to do it. (E.g. the renewal remainder email goes to someone who left last year and you then have a panic when it expires). Additionally, very long lived certificates are not insulated from from these sorts of changes and you may need to replace them during their lifetime anyway.
- v13inc 12y ago
  You keep bringing up Microsoft without mentioning thhat they gave their users 2 years of notice, while you are giving your users less then 6 months.
- Gregordinary 12y ago
  I suppose the CA's didn't jump on issuing SHA2 certs the same day as the as the Baseline update or the MS announcement, but they don't seem to be standing still. GlobalSign, the first one on your list for example, has limited the validity on new SHA1 certs to 3 years and will reduce that to 2 years and 1 year as the MS deadline approaches. https://blog.globalsignblog.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-move-to-sha-256 https://blog.globalsignblog.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-... Don't know if GoDaddy has limited the validity periods, but they do list the deadlines and suggest re-keying your cert: https://support.godaddy.com/help/article/4818/information-about-requiring-the-sha-2-hash-function https://support.godaddy.com/help/article/4818/information-ab... Wondering how many of those certs from GlobalSign, GoDaddy, GeoTrust, etc. are 4 & 5 year certs purchased prior to any announcement? As you noted CA's like to push multi-year certs. While you can usually reissue/re-key your cert free of charge with CA's, a lot of companies are probably hesitant to make sudden moves to SHA2 when there are compatibility concerns. Many on legacy systems like Server 2003 cannot update to SHA2. As I mentioned in another comment the hotfixes only bring Server 2003 SHA2 support up to the same level as XP SP3. (Only compatible as a client, not as a server). Also Microsoft's fastest approaching SHA2 deadline is January 2016 for CodeSigning yet Windows Vista & 7 don't support SHA2 signatures on kernel drivers. Not sure if that's been patched yet, but it would seem Microsoft isn't fully prepared to support their own policies either at the time of their own announcement.
- flavmartins 12y ago
  The claim that CAs have been sitting on SHA-1 and not migrating to SHA-2 is not entirely accurate, at least in my experience with DigiCert. Consequently, people I know there have told me that 25% of all SHA-2 certs expiring in 2017 have been issued by DigiCert, well beyond their market share. DigiCert has migrated all but a couple hundred customer certificates expiring in 2017 onto SHA-2, and those should be moved soon. As for CAs in general, much of the blame lies not with CAs but with the lack of SHA-2 compatibility in certain devices and software. For its part, today, DigiCert released a new, free tool that makes it easy for sys admins to identify all SHA-1 certs in their networks, determine validity periods and how future Chrome releases will treat these certs, and help admins map out a path toward SHA-1 sunsetting and SHA-2 migration. DigiCert will also replace any SHA-1 certs – for current customers and non-customers alike – for free. They will match the existing SHA-1 term for a free upgrade to SHA-2 through the end of the licensing period. Here’s a link from a Dark Reading article: http://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/authentication/digicert-releases-tool-to-simplify-sha-2-migration-for-system-administrators/d/d-id/1315841 http://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/authentication/digicert-....
userbinator 12y ago
The problem I have is how Google is doing this. Google acting like they control the whole Internet and that everyone will yield to their power is nothing new; sadly, in some ways that is probably true.
- rdl 12y ago
  It's probably true, but they honestly largely use this power responsibly. I don't even really have a problem with the action here, just the timing and means of announcement.

by rdl 12y ago

agl 12y ago

This was already announced by Microsoft last year: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/2880823.aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/2880823... Unfortunately, many CAs decided to ignore it, presumably on the assumption that Microsoft would be forced to back down. We've done this dance with MD5 and 1024-bit certificates and we know how it goes. Here's a quick list of CAs that issued more than 2000 certificates extending into 2017 with SHA-1: GlobalSign nv-sa: 75,312 GoDaddy: 41,606 GeoTrust: 40,429 Comodo: 37,789 Verisign: 34,927 Terena: 9,444 Thawte: 8,735 Internet2: 8,637 Network Solutions: 8,077 Entrust: 5,542 AlphaSSL: 3,458 We would all have liked CAs to have acted either when the Baseline was updated (2011) or when Microsoft laid down dates (Nov 2013) or when Chrome talked about doing this at the CA/B Forum meeting earlier this year. It is unfortunate that that 2016/2017 dates are being ignored. If you run a site and want to be insulated from this sort you might want to consider getting one year certificates. CAs like to sell multiple years of course but doing renewal once every three (or more) years means that you have a significant risk of loosing the institutional knowledge of how to do it. (E.g. the renewal remainder email goes to someone who left last year and you then have a panic when it expires). Additionally, very long lived certificates are not insulated from from these sorts of changes and you may need to replace them during their lifetime anyway.

v13inc 12y ago
You keep bringing up Microsoft without mentioning thhat they gave their users 2 years of notice, while you are giving your users less then 6 months.
Gregordinary 12y ago
I suppose the CA's didn't jump on issuing SHA2 certs the same day as the as the Baseline update or the MS announcement, but they don't seem to be standing still. GlobalSign, the first one on your list for example, has limited the validity on new SHA1 certs to 3 years and will reduce that to 2 years and 1 year as the MS deadline approaches. https://blog.globalsignblog.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-move-to-sha-256 https://blog.globalsignblog.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-... Don't know if GoDaddy has limited the validity periods, but they do list the deadlines and suggest re-keying your cert: https://support.godaddy.com/help/article/4818/information-about-requiring-the-sha-2-hash-function https://support.godaddy.com/help/article/4818/information-ab... Wondering how many of those certs from GlobalSign, GoDaddy, GeoTrust, etc. are 4 & 5 year certs purchased prior to any announcement? As you noted CA's like to push multi-year certs. While you can usually reissue/re-key your cert free of charge with CA's, a lot of companies are probably hesitant to make sudden moves to SHA2 when there are compatibility concerns. Many on legacy systems like Server 2003 cannot update to SHA2. As I mentioned in another comment the hotfixes only bring Server 2003 SHA2 support up to the same level as XP SP3. (Only compatible as a client, not as a server). Also Microsoft's fastest approaching SHA2 deadline is January 2016 for CodeSigning yet Windows Vista & 7 don't support SHA2 signatures on kernel drivers. Not sure if that's been patched yet, but it would seem Microsoft isn't fully prepared to support their own policies either at the time of their own announcement.
flavmartins 12y ago
The claim that CAs have been sitting on SHA-1 and not migrating to SHA-2 is not entirely accurate, at least in my experience with DigiCert. Consequently, people I know there have told me that 25% of all SHA-2 certs expiring in 2017 have been issued by DigiCert, well beyond their market share. DigiCert has migrated all but a couple hundred customer certificates expiring in 2017 onto SHA-2, and those should be moved soon. As for CAs in general, much of the blame lies not with CAs but with the lack of SHA-2 compatibility in certain devices and software. For its part, today, DigiCert released a new, free tool that makes it easy for sys admins to identify all SHA-1 certs in their networks, determine validity periods and how future Chrome releases will treat these certs, and help admins map out a path toward SHA-1 sunsetting and SHA-2 migration. DigiCert will also replace any SHA-1 certs – for current customers and non-customers alike – for free. They will match the existing SHA-1 term for a free upgrade to SHA-2 through the end of the licensing period. Here’s a link from a Dark Reading article: http://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/authentication/digicert-releases-tool-to-simplify-sha-2-migration-for-system-administrators/d/d-id/1315841 http://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/authentication/digicert-....

userbinator 12y ago

The problem I have is how Google is doing this. Google acting like they control the whole Internet and that everyone will yield to their power is nothing new; sadly, in some ways that is probably true.

rdl 12y ago
It's probably true, but they honestly largely use this power responsibly. I don't even really have a problem with the action here, just the timing and means of announcement.