5 ms·

Action is really needed. A system that can be breached just by any CA company that is more interested in money than in security (also at least one big CAs has a

Action is really needed. A system that can be breached just by any CA company that is more interested in money than in security (also at least one big CAs has a bad history concerning security) is plainly broken. There should at least be a kind of overseer that has the ability to intervene when bad behavior is reported. In the current situation, it is impossible to trust this "system of trust". It just sounds similar as I shall give the keys to my house to the thieves guild to prevent burglaries.

geofft 12y ago
Certificate Transparency is a solution. It's not my favorite solution, but it's far and away my favorite solution that stands a chance of working. http://www.certificate-transparency.org/ http://www.certificate-transparency.org/ This particular bad behavior, like entirely too many other breaches, was (probably) noticed because Google's own browser saw illegitimate but valid Google certificates, and alerted Google through its own channels. CT extends that to any other site that wants to participate. CT also requires that CAs disclose every certificate that's signed, including those signed by intermediates that they give to third parties. This doesn't make legitimate use of intermediates much more onerous, but it makes MITMing-proxy use extremely logistically complicated, even if you felt like telling the whole world you were MITMing certificates.
- itistoday2 12y ago
  > Certificate Transparency is a solution CT would not have prevented these attacks. Google would be exactly where they are right now: knowing who issued cert, and that's it. Short form: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain/blob/master/docs/Comparison.md https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain/blob/master/docs/Compa... Long form: https://blog.okturtles.com/2014/09/the-trouble-with-certificate-transparency/ https://blog.okturtles.com/2014/09/the-trouble-with-certific... (EDIT: How about an honest discussion instead of a downvote? If you disagree, you are welcome to explain why.)
  - geofft 12y ago
    Given the operational difficulty of implementing a transparently-MITMing proxy in a Certificate Transparency regime, I'm not sure you can say with certainty that it wouldn't have prevented this attack. Every time you want to MITM a new site, you need to contact some number of auditors before you can complete the connection. That sounds difficult to implement reliably and quickly enough for a MITM to work. (Not to mention that most off-the-shelf MITM proxies will intentionally not implement this, since the use case for legitimate MITM proxying involves using site-specific CAs, not globally-valid CAs, so you'd have to deploy custom code to go talk to the auditors. And I somehow have doubts that a robust, black-hat MITM proxy solution will emerge, given that it probably will have only a handful of users at any given time.) In any case, it is certainly not a perfect solution. But it is a solution. I've read that okTurtles blog post before. Insofar as it points out that CT has limitations, it's generally right. But the okTurtles scheme is much worse: if a certificate gets compromised, the only recourse is to pick a new website name. I think it's likely that there is no perfect solution here. CT makes no claims for perfection, but it's a pretty good imperfect solution, and I think we need that more than we need a nonexistent perfect solution. BTW: "Resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
    - itistoday2 12y ago
      > Given the operational difficulty of implementing a transparently-MITMing proxy in a Certificate Transparency regime, I'm not sure you can say with certainty that it wouldn't have prevented this attack. Every time you want to MITM a new site, you need to contact some number of auditors before you can complete the connection. 1. Certs don't need to include SCTs, so, end of story. 2. Even if that was a requirement, they can be faked just like the certificate. > In any case, it is certainly not a perfect solution. But it is a solution. It doesn't prevent MITM attacks (even Google acknowledges that), so it's not a solution (if preventing attacks is what you want). > But the okTurtles scheme is much worse: if a certificate gets compromised, the only recourse is to pick a new website name. Certificates are not associated with the key to modify the blockchain entry. So if a certificate gets compromised, you can immediately fix it by updating the blockchain entry. > BTW: "Resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." If people downvote me for no good reason, I'll point it out to them. Doesn't matter to me if it bores them. If that's a problem maybe they shouldn't downvote in the first place? :P
itistoday2 12y ago
> Action is really needed. Lot of good people taking action on this. There are solutions that totally solve this problem. Talk about them here though, you'll get downvoted (just see my comments). It means either: people want security theater, or they're completely ignorant about the topic.
- sanxiyn 12y ago
  I think people have different definitions of "solutions that totally solve this problem". If your solution totally solves this problem technically, but is unlikely to be deployed in the real world, it is not a solution that totally solves this problem in my book. Although I wouldn't downvote such claims, I can understand people downvoting "total solution" claims if the solution clearly is not (according to the above definition).
  - itistoday2 12y ago
    > If your solution totally solves this problem technically, but is unlikely to be deployed in the real world, it is not a solution that totally solves this problem in my book. The solution is deployed in the real world for some websites right now, and it would take Google less effort to implement for their websites than the effort they're putting into CT. I suspect these comments are getting downvoted for reasons that have nothing to do with technical (or social) merit.
    - sanxiyn 12y ago
      In my opinion, web browser extensions are not a viable way to deploy the solution to this problem. As far as I can tell, DNSChain has no buy in from web browser vendors. That makes it undeployable. It is irrelevant (or not very relevant) that it would take less effort than CT for Google. What is relevant is that Google is willing to implement CT, and not willing to implement DNSChain. Yes, this has nothing to do with technical merit, but it has a lot to do with actual merit of the solution in improving the current situation.
      - 12y ago

geofft 12y ago

Certificate Transparency is a solution. It's not my favorite solution, but it's far and away my favorite solution that stands a chance of working. http://www.certificate-transparency.org/ http://www.certificate-transparency.org/ This particular bad behavior, like entirely too many other breaches, was (probably) noticed because Google's own browser saw illegitimate but valid Google certificates, and alerted Google through its own channels. CT extends that to any other site that wants to participate. CT also requires that CAs disclose every certificate that's signed, including those signed by intermediates that they give to third parties. This doesn't make legitimate use of intermediates much more onerous, but it makes MITMing-proxy use extremely logistically complicated, even if you felt like telling the whole world you were MITMing certificates.

itistoday2 12y ago
> Certificate Transparency is a solution CT would not have prevented these attacks. Google would be exactly where they are right now: knowing who issued cert, and that's it. Short form: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain/blob/master/docs/Comparison.md https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain/blob/master/docs/Compa... Long form: https://blog.okturtles.com/2014/09/the-trouble-with-certificate-transparency/ https://blog.okturtles.com/2014/09/the-trouble-with-certific... (EDIT: How about an honest discussion instead of a downvote? If you disagree, you are welcome to explain why.)
- geofft 12y ago
  Given the operational difficulty of implementing a transparently-MITMing proxy in a Certificate Transparency regime, I'm not sure you can say with certainty that it wouldn't have prevented this attack. Every time you want to MITM a new site, you need to contact some number of auditors before you can complete the connection. That sounds difficult to implement reliably and quickly enough for a MITM to work. (Not to mention that most off-the-shelf MITM proxies will intentionally not implement this, since the use case for legitimate MITM proxying involves using site-specific CAs, not globally-valid CAs, so you'd have to deploy custom code to go talk to the auditors. And I somehow have doubts that a robust, black-hat MITM proxy solution will emerge, given that it probably will have only a handful of users at any given time.) In any case, it is certainly not a perfect solution. But it is a solution. I've read that okTurtles blog post before. Insofar as it points out that CT has limitations, it's generally right. But the okTurtles scheme is much worse: if a certificate gets compromised, the only recourse is to pick a new website name. I think it's likely that there is no perfect solution here. CT makes no claims for perfection, but it's a pretty good imperfect solution, and I think we need that more than we need a nonexistent perfect solution. BTW: "Resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
  - itistoday2 12y ago
    > Given the operational difficulty of implementing a transparently-MITMing proxy in a Certificate Transparency regime, I'm not sure you can say with certainty that it wouldn't have prevented this attack. Every time you want to MITM a new site, you need to contact some number of auditors before you can complete the connection. 1. Certs don't need to include SCTs, so, end of story. 2. Even if that was a requirement, they can be faked just like the certificate. > In any case, it is certainly not a perfect solution. But it is a solution. It doesn't prevent MITM attacks (even Google acknowledges that), so it's not a solution (if preventing attacks is what you want). > But the okTurtles scheme is much worse: if a certificate gets compromised, the only recourse is to pick a new website name. Certificates are not associated with the key to modify the blockchain entry. So if a certificate gets compromised, you can immediately fix it by updating the blockchain entry. > BTW: "Resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." If people downvote me for no good reason, I'll point it out to them. Doesn't matter to me if it bores them. If that's a problem maybe they shouldn't downvote in the first place? :P

itistoday2 12y ago

> Action is really needed. Lot of good people taking action on this. There are solutions that totally solve this problem. Talk about them here though, you'll get downvoted (just see my comments). It means either: people want security theater, or they're completely ignorant about the topic.

sanxiyn 12y ago
I think people have different definitions of "solutions that totally solve this problem". If your solution totally solves this problem technically, but is unlikely to be deployed in the real world, it is not a solution that totally solves this problem in my book. Although I wouldn't downvote such claims, I can understand people downvoting "total solution" claims if the solution clearly is not (according to the above definition).
- itistoday2 12y ago
  > If your solution totally solves this problem technically, but is unlikely to be deployed in the real world, it is not a solution that totally solves this problem in my book. The solution is deployed in the real world for some websites right now, and it would take Google less effort to implement for their websites than the effort they're putting into CT. I suspect these comments are getting downvoted for reasons that have nothing to do with technical (or social) merit.
  - sanxiyn 12y ago
    In my opinion, web browser extensions are not a viable way to deploy the solution to this problem. As far as I can tell, DNSChain has no buy in from web browser vendors. That makes it undeployable. It is irrelevant (or not very relevant) that it would take less effort than CT for Google. What is relevant is that Google is willing to implement CT, and not willing to implement DNSChain. Yes, this has nothing to do with technical merit, but it has a lot to do with actual merit of the solution in improving the current situation.
    - 12y ago