My team and I are the folks that have been fighting to make exactly this happen in DoD for years. We provide web hosting for the DoD Public Affairs community; we host 785 of DoD's top websites including defense.gov, af.mil, marines.mil, navy.mil, etc. For a deeper understanding of the issue, I have written a few blog posts about this to inform my stakeholders (links below). Delivering public DoD websites using commer…
Senator requests better https compliance at US Department of Defense [pdf]
51–56 of 56 posts
Re: Senator requests better https compliance at US Department of Defense [pdf]
#52The "Mozilla SSL Configuration Generator" has a checkbox for 'HSTS enabled?' and can generate SSL/TLS configs for Apache, Nginx, Lighttpd, HAProxy, AWS, ELB. https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generat... You can select 'nginx', then 'modern', and then 'apache' for a modern Apache configuration. Are the 'modern' configs FIPS compliant? What browsers/tools does requiring TLS 1.3 break?
Because TLS 1.3 is sat in the Editor queue patiently alongside other RFCs there isn't, or shouldn't be, any software compatible with TLS 1.3 today. Implementations of the Draft 23 or other editions are deliberately incompatible with and must be replaced by the real TLS 1.3 after the Editor is done with it even though (as it stands) they are otherwise functionally identical.
Apache mod_nss and nginx support (DRAFT) TLS 1.3.
The changes to allowed ciphers in TLS 1.3 could be implemented by modifying webserver config (e.g. as produced by the aforementioned Mozilla config generator tool). IDK what versions of (unupgraded) browsers that would cut off.
Re: Senator requests better https compliance at US Department of Defense [pdf]
#53My team and I are the folks that have been fighting to make exactly this happen in DoD for years. We provide web hosting for the DoD Public Affairs community; we host 785 of DoD's top websites including defense.gov, af.mil, marines.mil, navy.mil, etc. For a deeper understanding of the issue, I have written a few blog posts about this to inform my stakeholders (links below). Delivering public DoD websites using commer…
Why on earth are so many supposedly important systems _so_ insecure.
For example, TLS on email servers for our military think tanks or the unclassified email servers of our intelligence agencies or militaries.
Not having S/MIME or PGP I kinda understand, but full-blown TLS? I know protocol downgrade attacks / DNS attacks / etc are a thing, but passive surveillance of email traffic is _well documented_ and a thousand times easier than something noisy involving forged DNS responses. Even if there are networks with reliable blackers for actual classified stuff, surely communicating with professors or researchers that lack clearance is also worth protecting, no?
Why is it taking decades to get simple email / server configurations fixed?
Also, why is everything so broken and why does nobody seem to care?
Take QNX for example, the supposedly secure microkernel OS that we put in ever switch, router, car, truck, nuclear power plants, military radios, etc. It had almost all the same vulnerabilities that Linux and Windows had. Broken SRNG, hardcoded backdoor⇧⌥←^h^h "maintenance password", easy privilege escalation. Hell, even the crypt function wasn't a hash! It was just a bit mixer!
What is in the way of someone at the NSA just saying: "No, don't allow this to happen. Don't let them put the operating system into a bunch of stuff that we sell on the market."
Re: Senator requests better https compliance at US Department of Defense [pdf]
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep seeing people putting Lets Encrypt down. What is so wrong with it?
> I keep seeing people putting Lets Encrypt down. That was not my intent at all. I use and love Lets Encrypt's service. The comment was intended more around the fact that the US Military (and many large businesses) would never, and should never, rely on a free service like that. Lets Encrypt is great, I love it, I'd personally use it for business - but if I'm that large, I'm going to need a support contract + binding…
There aren't many US-based large CAs that would be in a position to offer the appropriate thing here, an API that all the DoD's disparate IT organisations can use to sort out certificates for outward-facing web sites, mail servers, etcetera. It would also be nice (for Congress in particular) for this not to add another budget line item.
It appears that IdenTrust (the small CA that cross-signed Let's Encrypt) used to provide services into the DoD, perhaps they still do, and doubtless they'd like a juicy DoD contract for more of that, but are they in a position to offer ACME (or a proprietary equivalent)? Do they handle the scale to just shove 50 000 DoD site certificates out the door like it's nothing (which Let's Encrypt absolutely could)?
Big Hitters in this space today are: Let's Encrypt, Comodo (British, not American), DigiCert (possibly an option), GoDaddy (surely not), GlobalSign (Belgian / Japanese). After that it's all small potatoes, and a five person company that issues less than a thousand certificates per week is not the right size for a DoD national contract.
Long term the US Government had expressed interest via 18F in actually running a "real" CA, to be limited (in clients like Firefox that know how) to the .gov TLD but you can imagine it's not hard to add .mil there. However 18F is not what it once was under Trump. This is not a good time to be in Washington if your goal isn't to stuff as much cash as possible into your underwear and then waddle off into the sunset, so I'd guess the CA plan is back-burnered and maybe dead for good.
Re: Senator requests better https compliance at US Department of Defense [pdf]
#55My team and I are the folks that have been fighting to make exactly this happen in DoD for years. We provide web hosting for the DoD Public Affairs community; we host 785 of DoD's top websites including defense.gov, af.mil, marines.mil, navy.mil, etc. For a deeper understanding of the issue, I have written a few blog posts about this to inform my stakeholders (links below). Delivering public DoD websites using commer…
Re: Senator requests better https compliance at US Department of Defense [pdf]
#56My team and I are the folks that have been fighting to make exactly this happen in DoD for years. We provide web hosting for the DoD Public Affairs community; we host 785 of DoD's top websites including defense.gov, af.mil, marines.mil, navy.mil, etc. For a deeper understanding of the issue, I have written a few blog posts about this to inform my stakeholders (links below). Delivering public DoD websites using commer…
What group? USDS Defense Digital Service? Would be interested to know of such initiatives.