Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This just sounds like a problem with your company. I have seen that pattern in enough companies to be convinced this is widespread. > The barrier for getting certs from a public CA is lower than ever now that Let's Encrypt and others exist I don't think you understood what I'm talking about. Public certificates are cute for your public website, but any sizeable company is _also_ hundreds of internal websites and se…
> You want private DNS to private IPs Nothing stops you getting a cert while pointing your DNS records to internal addresses. The DNS-01 challenge exists to serve exactly that kind of configuration. > lots of ISPs won't even serve your private IPs through their DNS caches I have never seen this, could you give an example? However, if this is an issue then there's nothing stopping you from just using your public DNS f…
Ssl.com: DCV bypass and issue fake certificates for any MX hostname
61–66 of 66 posts
Re: Ssl.com: DCV bypass and issue fake certificates for any MX hostname
#62And remember kids: there's hundreds of CAs, they all implement validation independently, and you just need one to do one of the three validation methods wrong to make any cert you want. And there's two dozen different attacks that work aside from bugs in validation. Cert validation is swiss cheese. But there's a fix: have the registrars confirm authority to issue certs using a public key uploaded by the domain owner.…
CAA account binding is basically this. Not cryptographically verified but similar idea that the CA confirms you possess a secret (account) before issuing. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8657
They instead verify your authorization to control DNS records, or IP space, or an e-mail address. And there's dozens of exploits to compromise each of those. And they can be chained. And they can be CA-specific.
That's not domain authorization, and each of those verification methods lacks cryptographic authentication. Only the Registrar controls the domain, so that is the only way to know that the request is genuinely authorized. We're playing a game of telephone, it's not secure, and it's unnecessary. Just get the registrar involved.
Re: Ssl.com: DCV bypass and issue fake certificates for any MX hostname
#63And remember kids: there's hundreds of CAs, they all implement validation independently, and you just need one to do one of the three validation methods wrong to make any cert you want. And there's two dozen different attacks that work aside from bugs in validation. Cert validation is swiss cheese. But there's a fix: have the registrars confirm authority to issue certs using a public key uploaded by the domain owner.…
With your solution, we end up with the same problem just one layer down. Browsers have to contain a list of 'trusted' registars, and an attacker only needs to find one buggy registrar that will incorrectly sign for a domain the attacker doesn't own.
Basic math shows how much safer the new model would be:
- Assume there are 350 CAs, 3 validation methods, and 12 kinds of exploit per validation method (there are more in some combinations but for simplicity I'll say 12).
(350 x 3 x 12) leaves *12,600* possible attack vectors.
- Now assume there's 2,650 domain registrars, 1 validation method, and 1 kind of exploit.
(2650 * 1 * 1) leaves *2,650* possible attack vectors.
So 4.75x fewer possible attack vectors.Add to this that with only 1 validation method and 1 feature to support, that's way less code, which means much fewer bugs.
Add to that a cryptographic chain of proof that the key of the domain owner was used to sign the request all the way, which we don't have today.
Re: Ssl.com: DCV bypass and issue fake certificates for any MX hostname
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
With your solution, we end up with the same problem just one layer down. Browsers have to contain a list of 'trusted' registars, and an attacker only needs to find one buggy registrar that will incorrectly sign for a domain the attacker doesn't own.
That's a much simpler problem to solve than the current one. One attack vector to cover, one set of organizations, one trust list. It's definitely no worse than our current predicament. Basic math shows how much safer the new model would be: - Assume there are 350 CAs, 3 validation methods, and 12 kinds of exploit per validation method (there are more in some combinations but for simplicity I'll say 12). (350 x 3 x 1…
Of course, neither of us have actual numbers but my gut instinct is that registars are probably about as secure if not less secure than CAs, and there are nearly 10x as many of them.
Re: Ssl.com: DCV bypass and issue fake certificates for any MX hostname
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a much simpler problem to solve than the current one. One attack vector to cover, one set of organizations, one trust list. It's definitely no worse than our current predicament. Basic math shows how much safer the new model would be: - Assume there are 350 CAs, 3 validation methods, and 12 kinds of exploit per validation method (there are more in some combinations but for simplicity I'll say 12). (350 x 3 x 1…
This math only looks good because you're adding an arbitrary unsubstantiated 12x multiplier to the CA numbers. Of course, neither of us have actual numbers but my gut instinct is that registars are probably about as secure if not less secure than CAs, and there are nearly 10x as many of them.
The 12x multiplier comes from the number of attack vectors to validation methods. The whole system is public knowledge; if you know how each part works, and you know about all the possible security exploits out there, you can just count them.
Here's a brief list off the top of my head, it's not exhaustive:
- DNS validation. The CA looks up TXT records of a given subdomain.
Attack 1. DNS cache poisoning
Attack 2. Compromise the credentials of a DNS admin
Attack 3. Zero-day exploit in the DNS server
Attack 4. Zero-day exploit in the DNS web management interface
Attack 5. Incorrectly configured DNS zone transfer settings.
Attack 6. BGP spoofing attack on the target DNS nameserver.
Attack 7. BGP spoofing attack on the CA's DNS resolver.
- HTTP validation. The CA requests a specific URL over HTTP and verifies the contents.
Attack 1. MITM the HTTP request/response. (Can be done anywhere across the network, from the CA internal network to the target internal/external network)
Attack 2-8. Every single DNS attack. You just replace the A/AAAA record when looking up the target HTTP host, with an attacker-controlled http host.
Attack 9. BGP spoofing attack on the IP of the target HTTP host.
Attack 10. Zero-day exploit in the target HTTP server.
Attack 11. Stealing credentials to remotely login to the target HTTP server.
- Email validation. The CA sends an e-mail to the domain and confirms the reply.
Attack 1-7. Every DNS attack.
Attack 8. BGP spoofing attack on the IP of the target MX host.
Attack 9. MITM the e-mail. This one is extra easy as intermediate unencrypted relays are common/expected.
Attack 10. Steal the credentials of the mail server admin to remotely log in and intercept/fake emails.
Attack 11. If it's a site that allows users to register an email address, there are six different email addresses they can try to register; if one works, they can use that to validate certs for that domain.
Attack 12. Zero-day exploit in the mail server software.
Attack 13. Zero-day exploit in the mail server's web management interface.
And this is just the run-of-the-mill exploits most experienced hackers can pull off remotely. Haven't gotten into more advanced things like supply-chain attacks, timing attacks, protocol/algorithm flaws, espionage, social engineering, etc.The big problem is that since validation uses no cryptography whatsoever, all the attacks are fairly trivial. A BGP attack is so easy that it happens by accident on a monthly basis. MITM is easy. Stealing credentials is easy (ask any botnet admin). Attacking DNS is easy (most people don't uses DNSSEC and even if they do their clients/resolvers aren't enforcing validation).
Do an end-run around all this bullshit by asking the people who actually know who owns the domain (the Registrar) to validate it cryptographically.
Re: Ssl.com: DCV bypass and issue fake certificates for any MX hostname
#66I guess they can check logs and find how many times this has been abused already? Can we trust them to release full transparent report?