Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is nobody using SSL client certificates?

pilif.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Why is nobody using SSL client certificates?

#151

Post by dredmorbius »

count wrote: post #147
dredmorbius wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the CA's become single-point-of-compromise for the whole PKI. It's a bit more nuanced than that. A compromised CA can issue new certs which can spoof old one's identity, but it can't be used to create certs which will read traffic from an existing host. The big risk is that someone is subject to a MITM attack, doesn't clue in on the certificate change (their client should note this), and accepts the new key. Signed /…

A compromised CA in a client cert PKI world, like the DOD one I was talking about, is effectively an end-game scenario. Every machine in the org. would have to be updated (root CA's don't have CRLs, afaik). The big risk isn't a mitm attack - that's a risk with traditional server-side certs. The big risk is that all of a sudden there are unlimited legitimate users with no control over identities anymore. It's like get…

Doesn't that depend on how you authorize the client certs themselves?

It's one thing to _issue_ a cert. It's another to _approve_ that issued cert.

If you're blindly accepting certs, you've got other issues.

Re: Why is nobody using SSL client certificates?

#152

Post by dredmorbius »

bascule wrote: post #118
pilif wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I meant about malware is that client certificates can't provide additional security over passwords because malware can easily steal both. So it's only hassle and no advantage, hence, useless

Client certs can't be phished

The can be revealed by other means (trojan/virus on the client). But yes, the anti-phishing aspect is a good one.

Re: Why is nobody using SSL client certificates?

#154

Post by m_mueller »

pilif wrote: post #46

I'm the author of this post which I have written in 2008. Since then my views have changed a bit: for one, the added security is debatable as the client cert is easily accessible to malware and thus could easily be stolen. The other thing is that renegotiation is somewhat broken since that related security flaw in 2010ish, so you can't have parts of a site accessible without client certs and other parts requiring a c…

Isn't the point of client certs that the private key should never leave the machine? I.e. when you want to get access from a Smartphone you just initiate a new certification process, some admin ticks off a new public key and you're set? For consumer faced apps I could see some initial authentication process where for every new public key the user gets an E-Mail in order to activate it. Using it this way I think there is also no reason to use the browser UI for importing / exporting certificates, at least not for the users themselves. Still, the question remains why no-one is using it.

Re: Why is nobody using SSL client certificates?

#155

Post by captainmuon »

CERN (and other research facilities) use these a lot, to manage access to their internal websites and to the grid (the distributed computing platform). IIRC, you have a cern account, and generate a short-term certificate with which you work. You can use it to submit jobs into the grid, but you can also import it into the browser to access e.g. grid monitoring software, or internal wikis. The idea is that in the worst case that you lose the certificate to a hacker, it can be revoked quickly without having to block your whole account.

The last time I checked (haven't worked with CERN's computers or the grid for a while), it was pretty user-unfriendly. Obscure shell scripts for everything. It hopefully improved since then. OTOH, it's probably good enough for programmers and researchers.

Re: Why is nobody using SSL client certificates?

#157

Post by Sami_Lehtinen »

m_mueller wrote: post #154
pilif wrote: post #46

I'm the author of this post which I have written in 2008. Since then my views have changed a bit: for one, the added security is debatable as the client cert is easily accessible to malware and thus could easily be stolen. The other thing is that renegotiation is somewhat broken since that related security flaw in 2010ish, so you can't have parts of a site accessible without client certs and other parts requiring a c…

Isn't the point of client certs that the private key should never leave the machine? I.e. when you want to get access from a Smartphone you just initiate a new certification process, some admin ticks off a new public key and you're set? For consumer faced apps I could see some initial authentication process where for every new public key the user gets an E-Mail in order to activate it. Using it this way I think there…

This is why: I know one company & service which did. But after a year or two they gave up. It just complicated things, overloaded helpdesk and made customers angry. They used client certificates to count 'workstation licenses' for a web app.

Re: Why is nobody using SSL client certificates?

#158

Post by m_mueller »

Sami_Lehtinen wrote: post #157
m_mueller wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point of client certs that the private key should never leave the machine? I.e. when you want to get access from a Smartphone you just initiate a new certification process, some admin ticks off a new public key and you're set? For consumer faced apps I could see some initial authentication process where for every new public key the user gets an E-Mail in order to activate it. Using it this way I think there…

This is why: I know one company & service which did. But after a year or two they gave up. It just complicated things, overloaded helpdesk and made customers angry. They used client certificates to count 'workstation licenses' for a web app.

Well, using it for licensing is of course harder to argue for than increasing the user's security. May I ask what were the specific problems in your scenario? I'm guessing users with multiple browsers? That's another reason why I hate Windows not having a central MS provided keyring. If MS had pushed for it soon after the POSIX community and Apple, passwordless authentification might be already a standard nowadays.
Post reply on HN