| |||||||||||||
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issuedFraudulent *.google.com certificate issuedPosted Aug 30, 2011 15:45 UTC (Tue) by dkg (subscriber, #55359)In reply to: Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued by butlerm Parent article: Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued
The easy way to remedy most of this problem is to drop the use of CA issued certificates for domain validation and use DNSSEC validated certificates instead. Sure, DANE is a decent way to ensure that malicious CAs are out of the loop, so they can't be targeted by governments or corporations who want to impersonate or replace an existing presence on the 'net. DANE does this by placing much more reliance on DNS itself. However, governments and corporations have already demonstrated a willingness to tamper with DNS directly. It's not clear to me that DANE (or anything else like that relies solely on DNS) going to solve the larger problem of powerful adversaries being able to impersonate or damage specific network services. This authenticity problem is caused by centralized and implicitly-trusted authority, not just crappy CAs. We need a naming scheme that is decentralized and cryptographically-verifiable with explicit corroboration mechanisms, like Monkeysphere (i contribute to this project) or Convergence to address the issue. A "solution" which further centralizes authority seems likely to consolidate abuse, not eliminate it.
(Log in to post comments)
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 16:51 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
You can not tamper with DNSSEC replies. That's the whole point. Of course, you have to trust the root (and your system administrator, which is likely a weaker link) but that's about a billion times better than hundreds of CAs (where all of them needs to be secure).
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 16:57 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if the government is out to get you, what makes you think you can trust the root?
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 17:16 UTC (Tue) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link] This is exactly my point. We need distributed/decentralized naming schemes that allow corroborative assertions so that our tools can actually reflect explicit, considered reliance on naming/identifying authorities. DNS as currently implemented (including DNSSEC) doesn't provide this decentralization, so it doesn't solve the underlying problem.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 18:44 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
IIUC one would need to run an entire shadow DNS infrastructure to pull this off, their own root which signs all of the second level domains which signs all of the third level domains, probably creating the keys as requests come in and caching them. I imagine that this is well within the capabilities of a well funded government program but it would be interesting to figure out exactly how complex the spoofing would need to be to successfully subvert DNSSEC so as to enable this kind of monitoring, how much it would cost. Then we can figure out what the risk is.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 19:03 UTC (Tue) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link] Or, a powerful adversary could just lean on one of the parties holding a key that sits "above" the target domain, and request that the keyholder quietly provide a properly-signed RR that delegates a sub-zone to the adversary.Then, the adversary serves this RR in response to the victim's DNS request, and manages the sub-zone themselves. With such an RR in hand, the adversary only needs to control the victim's upstream network connection in order to be able to compromise the integrity and confidentiality of their communications. if the delegated zone is a high-level one (e.g. .com), then something like phreebird in front of a filtering DNS cache should be fine (filtering to replace the authoritative keys for the sub-zones with its own key, that is). It would take a bit of engineering, but it's far from an insurmountable task.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 19:15 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
>one would need to run an entire shadow DNS infrastructure to pull this off
At a minimum you would need the DNS root private key (or the cooperation of the people who hold the key) to do this without compromising the client, which places it out of reach for any but the governments powerful enough to compel ICANN to give them the key or sign a full set of compromised TLDs for them.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 1, 2011 8:26 UTC (Thu) by Comet (subscriber, #11646) [Link]
No, you'd only need to fake up the first level signatures on the TLDs, and then into any TLD where you want to be able to filter traffic; the public keys for the sub-zones are published in the DNS, so for those you want to preserve you just pass through a delegation into the existing keys.
Given that DNS implementations are optimising for fast signing for NSEC3 anyway, it's not an impressive feat to transparently re-sign only those areas needed.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 1, 2011 18:06 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
So are you saying that for spoofing foobix.com for example you would need a duplicate key for "foobix" signed by the real key for "com", or a duplicate "com" signed by the real root. If so then I think we are saying the same thing, either you have to get duplicates signed by the real keys or you have to spoof the whole thing from the root on down.
One difference between the existing CA infrastructure and DNS that I just thought about is that for DNS there is a lot of coordination to prevent duplicate registrations as dups are not allowed whereas there is zero technical protection from CAs signing anything they like.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 1, 2011 20:49 UTC (Thu) by Comet (subscriber, #11646) [Link]
For spoofing foobix.com, you need fake keys for the root, for com. and for foobix.com. But you don't need fake keys for any domain you're not interested in, as you just sign the anchors for the legitimate keys with your key. And this signing can be done inline, at speed.
CAs can constrain themselves with nameConstraints; more commonly, a trusted CA would charge $$$ for a corporation to be able to issue their own certs without needing to go up, because the corp has scaling issues getting their own root cert onto every client device in a trusted manner, across all the vendors and contractors and the like; so example.com megacorp pays $$$ to the root CA for a basicConstraints CA:TRUE cert and the root CA preserve their income stream by making sure the newly minted CA cert has nameConstraints=permitted;DNS:*.example.com in it.
Another reason to be worried when software doesn't do any certificate chain validation, or tries to roll its own validation steps for the chain.
What's needed is constraints _outside_ the CA's control. A nameConstraints which can be applied to the CA, to keep the certs in-country and optionally warn for use outside the country, for vetting/approval (but default to block, to avoid continuing to train people to click through stuff they don't understand). What's needed is more of the steps like Google's cert-pinning, letting site operators at least get as far as the SSH security model of "latch on first use". Not ideal, but a massively reduced attack window (which can be shrunk to zero if you get the pinning into the source, rather than learnt; that then leaves "just" compromise of the browser distribution mechanism ...)
See:
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 1, 2011 21:47 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I see, in bulk you can just strip the legit signature and replace with your own. Thank you for the patient explanation.
Distributed naming system Posted Sep 1, 2011 20:09 UTC (Thu) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]
There's the namecoin system forked from and inspired by bitcoin:
https://github.com/vinced/namecoin
I don't know whether that's viable though. Bitcoin itself seems to have scaling problems if applied to something as large as current DNS.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 19:00 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
>if the government is out to get you, what makes you think you can trust the root?
Perhaps because the root is operated by an organization with no reason to tamper with it, in a country where tampering with a major domain would shortly become common knowledge and lead to major political repercussions?
Assuming the .com registry cooperated, intercepting, re-encrypting, and forwarding a large fraction of Google's HTTPS traffic would be a bit of a trick too. The only way a large government could get away with it is with Google's help, because they would probably be the first to know.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 19:12 UTC (Tue) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link] intercepting, re-encrypting, and forwarding a large fraction of Google's HTTPS traffic would be a bit of a trick too. Unless, of course, the adversary is doing a more targeted attack against a specific network they happen to be upstream of. In that case, they can ignore all the rest of the traffic, and focus their resources on compromising traffic coming out of a network segment they are interested in. But my larger concern here isn't about Google being compromised. That's bad, but (as the current situation shows) Google actually has the resources and infrastructure to potentially catch when something is going wrong. What about smaller sites? Google vs. a medium-sized government is like King Kong vs. Godzilla. It's not clear who would win. But what if one of these titans turns their focus on small fry? Our current infrastructure suggests a sorry future for the hope of a free and autonomous global network.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 19:38 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
How does that work in practice? Wouldn't you need to have a key signed by the next highest upstream authority to make this work, or do clients not do any checking if the key for com. changes between requests? Wouldn't the only sure-fire way to do spoofing for foobix.com. be to have a shadow root with its own complete key infrastructure for all possible zones all the way down to the one that is being spoofed? You aren't going to be able to re-use any of the legitimate public key material because the trust relationships won't be compatible with the spoofed resources, right?
As long as clients don't accept the upstream keys in the hierarchy changing between requests, to spoof one child domain you have to spoof them all, right?
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 22:53 UTC (Tue) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
I'm not certain of it, but it appears to me that x86_64 Firefox in Fedora 14/15 doesn't check the intermediate certs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732144
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 31, 2011 0:29 UTC (Wed) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
Did you check if Firefox had cached the intermediate certificates? It can make things appear to work, but when you try with another computer which has not visited yet any site which uses the same intermediate certificate, it will fail.
(I believe Firefox switched to also caching intermediate certificates because, since Internet Explorer caches intermediate certificates, a lot of people forgot to put the whole chain on their servers, and it "worked" on IE but failed - as it should - on Firefox.)
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 31, 2011 1:35 UTC (Wed) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
Good suggestion. I believed I would have blown out my ~/.mozilla in the various tests, but I'll confirm that.
Trust the root -- trusssst it Posted Sep 1, 2011 20:41 UTC (Thu) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]
How would the Iranian government (which seems to have replaced the Chinese as the traditional bad guy in these kind of plots) impersonate the root?
The only credible opponent in this game is the US government, which through coercion, legal or otherwise, openly or not (National Security letters, anyone?), could influence any of its subjects. But as I understand it the KSK can only be got at by corrupting three individuals, with most of them living outside the US of A -- see http://www.root-dnssec.org/tcr/selection-2010/ for your list of targets.
If the NSA wants to spy on your google.com traffic it is altogether more likely that they would attack com's key via rubber hose techniques, which is probably not as well-protected.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 1, 2011 20:48 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
"The government" does not handle the root. ICANN does, and while they are under legislation controlled by the USA government they are very throughly watched by a number of interested parties.
Let's not go overboard with paranoia here. DNS is centralized by design, and most end users would not even notice if SSL was stripped by a DNS-forging middleman so we need to secure it anyway.
Yes, ICANN is a single point of failure in the DNSSEC system -- but we have the opportunity here to replace a system which amounts to multiple points of epic fail.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 18:49 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Both Convergence and Monkeysphere seem like respect-worthy engineering attempts. I'd really love to see a hard look at both of them by some skeptical experts, as to both usability and security design/implementation. I'll confess I haven't yet given either of them a spin, partly because I'm guessing they require some study and setup before you can get much benefit.For now, what I've used to mitigate the risk is CertWatch, which is blessedly simple and easy to fully understand: It merely keeps records about usage of SSL certs, root CAs, and intermediate certs in a sqlite database, lets you know every time you're using a new/changed SSL cert or CA root cert or intermediate cert for the first time. So, if suddenly my online banking login for $MY_BANK has an unexpected new cert, and especially if the new cert is from a different certificate authority that doesn't look familiar, I have the opportunity and option to be doubtful about site authenticity. Rick Moen
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Aug 30, 2011 19:59 UTC (Tue) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
I think Moxie Marlinspike puts this the best:
http://blog.thoughtcrime.org/ssl-and-the-future-of-authen...
"So unfortunately the DNSSEC trust relationships depend on sketchy organizations and governments, just like the current CA system."
Marlinspike Posted Aug 31, 2011 0:50 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
To me Marlinspike's position is silly. First of all there's his rejection of scope: to Marlinspike it is apparently inconceivable that different people are authoritative about whitehouse.gov compared to mfa.gov.cn. No, any potential authority must be all-knowing, an impossible standard which just sets them up to fail like today's CAs.
Secondly his emphasis on trust "agility" that's useless to everybody but a tiny number of nerds like Marlinspike or myself. My mother isn't going to spend hours every week reconsidering her choice of authority, she isn't even going to spend ten minutes a year. She'll accept the out of box default like every other user, the same situation (and thus the same problem) as we have now.
Finally Marlinspike's confusion between the root operators and ICANN is either ignorant (in which case who cares what somebody who doesn't know the first thing about DNS thinks?) or malicious. ICANN lacks the technical capability to do what this blog entry suggests, the KSK isn't in their possession so they simply can't create the imaginary alternate key hierarchy needed for such spoofing. Manipulating ICANN is a very different thing from going after the root operators, either in the form of the corporations and other legal entities or the actual men-with-beards who perform the public key ceremonies.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 1, 2011 20:54 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Marlinspike's reasoning is simplified to the point of being flat out wrong. I trust my TLD a whole lot more than I trust the Chinese Internet NIC, or any of the other 1500 CAs that browsers trust today.
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 6, 2011 4:14 UTC (Tue) by clint (subscriber, #7076) [Link]
Is your TLD run by an organization not rife with incompetence, laziness, and corruption?
Fraudulent *.google.com certificate issued Posted Sep 6, 2011 7:45 UTC (Tue) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Absolutely. I recognize some of the technicians responsible from UNIX groups and mailing lists and I have no reason to doubt their competence.
But the point here is that I can choose which TLD I register my domains under, and trust is not implicitly delegated between them. Even if the .xxx top level domain (as a completely made up example) is run by greedy or incompetent people they can't create a mess for any one else, as opposed to the current CA model where DigiNotar can sign "CN=*.*.com".
That's is not just an implementation detail, it's a fundamental difference.
|
|||||||||||||