|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Gathering session cookies with Firesheep

Gathering session cookies with Firesheep

Posted Nov 13, 2010 23:40 UTC (Sat) by Simetrical (guest, #53439)
In reply to: Gathering session cookies with Firesheep by filteredperception
Parent article: Gathering session cookies with Firesheep

You're right that if you can get an illegitimate cert, the entire PKI falls apart. However, the cert has to match the domain, and certificate authorities will have their trust revoked by browsers (making their certs useless) if they're found to be giving certs away to people who don't actually control the domains they're for. Typically you have to at least control the e-mail for a domain to be able to get a cert for it. Large governments could probably get hold of illegitimate certs easily enough, but it's quite nontrivial for anyone else. And even for governments, a forged cert is inherently detectable, so any complicit CAs could be eventually found out and get removed from browsers' trusted lists.

This problem will potentially go away in the medium term with DNSSEC. Once sites can deploy certificates through DNSSEC, there's no reason we couldn't also devise a DNS record that says "only accept certificates from DNSSEC, not certificates that claim to be signed by CAs". Then the only way to publish a false certificate for the site would be to compromise their DNS, which gives you many fewer attack vectors than now, when you can compromise (or trick or bully) any one of hundreds of CAs.

There's been discussion about adding a feature like this to Strict-Transport-Security, so you can say "only accept a cert signed by this root CA". Then an attacker has to compromise a *specific* CA to compromise the site instead of being able to compromise *any* CA, making their job much harder.


to post comments

Gathering session cookies with Firesheep

Posted Nov 14, 2010 11:59 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

[…] and certificate authorities will have their trust revoked by browsers (making their certs useless) if they're found to be giving certs away to people who don't actually control the domains they're for.

Yeah right. Like this happened to VeriSign in March, 2001.

Gathering session cookies with Firesheep

Posted Nov 14, 2010 12:11 UTC (Sun) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link]

Is it your contention that a single mistake by a CA should mean they are thereafter disqualified from being included in browsers until the end of time?

There's a difference between a mistake (which happen to the best of us) and wilfully ignoring the necessary rules and safeguards, or a history of mistakes which leads to a diagnosis of institutional incompetence. I suggest that Verisign is guilty of neither of the latter two things.

In addition, the certificate(s) in the incident you reference were digital code-signing certificates, not web server certificates. Very occasionally, web server certs do fall into the wrong hands (which can be via hacking and theft as much as misissuance - how many SSL-running web servers do you think were rooted in the past year?) but I'd be impressed if you can show me a single reported incident where a fraudulently-acquired web server cert was used for spoofing.

Gerv


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds