1I have an app installed on my android device that shows me if the SHA256 fingerprint has been changed. It often shows that it has been altered when I run it for YouTube.com and it once showed for Instagram.com. I tried using a VPN and it didn't show afterwards.
The app basically says that it detects the SSL interception of web traffic which will decrypt an encrypted session. The test is accomplished by comparing the HTTPS certificate fingerprint of the website on your device vs the fingerprint shown on an external server.
I'm curious if it is really a concern as I do a lot of private video calls on Instagram. Are those getting recorded or anything without my knowledge?
PS: I do not have any shady app on my device.
Check the actual certificate the sites return. Certificates will expire after a while, meaning they get replaced with new versions.
Besides that, bigger sites with multiple datacenters, such as YouTube (Google) and Instagram (Facebook), might even use different certificates for different regions. This would explain why it doesn't show up while using a VPN. Also because of IP routing, special server configurations, ... you might end up connecting to different servers/regions (with different certificates) from day to day or so.
Assuming that the certificate is properly signed, valid and not revoked, you should be fine, even if the fingerprint changes. For malicious people to perform a man-in-the-middle attack with a valid SSL, they'd either need to have a valid certificate themselves (which would get revoked), access to the site's servers (which is a lost cause) or add a malicious root certificate to your device (which is a whole other problem).
The test is accomplished by comparing the HTTPS certificate
fingerprint of the website on your device vs the fingerprint shown on
an external server.
Mind that that external server might also have a different/outdated fingerprint compared to you, for any of the reasons above or others.
Related
I am using the Authorize.Net DPM (Direct Post Method) integration on one particular eCommerce system that I manage.
We have renewed our SSL certificate for this site, and the new SSL cert uses SHA-256 rather than SHA-1, as is recommended for additional security.
However, now AUthoeize.Net can no longer post back to my server. When processing a payment, I receive the message:
An error occurred while trying to report this transaction to the merchant. An e-mail has been sent to the merchant informing them of the error. The following is the result of the attempt to charge your credit card.
from the URL https://secure.authorize.net/gateway/transact.dll, rather than being sent back to my code where I can display the "payment successful" page. Upon reseraching this, I believe the issue is that Authorize.Net's servers don't support SHA-2 certificates:
Does anyone know if Authorize.net accepts the newer SHA2 encryption? Our production servers which use this type of certificate do not receive the RelayResponse.
We found an article on SHA2 encryption issues with WIN2003 servers KB968730. We know Authorize.net uses Win 2003 servers based on http headers, which tell us IIS6.0.
We just established that is a real issue with Authorize.Net. We were able to purchase a SHA1 certificate and we are now able to receive the Relay Response from Authorize.NET. Authorize.NET Relay Response does not handle G2/SHA256 certificates. This will become a major issue in 2014 when SHA1 certifictions will not be obtainable from vendors eg. GoDaddy etc.
I have contacted Authorize.Net support but they seem to not even understand how their own product works, because the responses I get from them make no sense:
We have no announcements regarding the use specifically of SHA-2 hashes to connect to our servers at this time. Notices of any changes to the integration methods will be available in the merchant interface, as well as on the developer center at developer.authorize.net if that change occurs.
I'm not connecting to their servers. They're connecting to my server... so since their support is of no help... how can I resolve this? Is it safe/wise to not use SSL for the x_relay_url DPM postback URL? That seems to be the safest suggestion but I am hesitant to do this.
The resolution I went with was to get an SSL certificate with an SHA-1 signature algorithm, rather than SHA-2.
The issue that SHA-2 certs are rejected by Authorize.net's servers has been reported to their systems engineering team, but I do not know if they will correct this.
I have just run into this problem myself.
I can verify that in my tests, when I switched my x_redirect_url parameter to use a non-ssl host it started redirecting properly back to my site. I can also verify that Authorize.net support does not know how their own products work; I had to explain to them how the x_redirect_url works and got no usable info from them regarding any kind of validation they might be doing on the redirect URL that could cause their system to refuse to redirect.
I thought it was due to a domain name mismatch in my dev environment so I just forced my dev environment to use a non-ssl redirect. Then when I launched my new site I discovered that the problem persisted with SSL redirects on my production site, so I've just switched it back to using non-ssl redirects on my production site temporarily until I get this sorted out.
I have not yet regenerated my ssl cert because I'm not sure if it's using SHA1 or SHA2 and I don't want to regenerate it and reinstall it until I'm sure the cert is SHA1.
I'm having a hard time determining which SHA version it uses because the Thumbprint Algorithm shows SHA1, but then I see SHA256RSA for the Signature Algorithm and sha256 for the Signature Hash Algorithm. So, if anyone knows if that means I have SHA1 or SHA2, please reply to this reply.
I want to host copyrighted data on a Amazon S3 bucket (to have a larger bandwidth available than what my servers can handle) and provide access to these copyrighted data for a large numbers of authorized clients.
My problem is:
i create signed expiring HTTPS URL for these resources on the server side
these URL are sent to clients via a HTTPS connection
when the client uses these URL to download the contents, the URL can be seen in clear for any man-in-the-middle
In details, the URL are created via a Ruby On Rails server using the fog gem.
The mobile clients I'm talking about are iOS devices.
The proxy I've used for my test is mitmproxy.
The URL I generated looked like this:
https://mybucket.s3.amazonaws.com/myFileKey?AWSAccessKeyId=AAA&Signature=BBB&Expires=CCC
I'm not a network or security expert but I had found resources stating nothing was going clear over HTTPS connections (for instance, cf. Are HTTPS headers encrypted?). Is it a misconfiguration of my test that led to this clear URL? Any tip on what could have gone wrong here? Is there a real chance I can prevent S3 URL to go clear over the network?
So firstly, when sending a request over SSL all parameters are encrypted. If you were to look at the traffic going through a normal proxy you wouldn't be able to read them.
However, many proxies allow interception of SSL data by creating dummy certificates. This is exactly what mitmproxy does. You may well have enabled this and not realised it (although you would have had to install a client-side certificate to do this).
The bottom line is that your AWS URLs could be easily intercepted by somebody looking to reverse engineer your app, either through a proxy or by tapping into the binary itself. However, this isn't a 'bad thing' per se: Amazon themselves know this happens, and that's why they're not sending the secret key directly in the URL itself, but using a signature.
I don't think this is a huge problem for you: after all, you're creating URLs that expire, so even if someone can get hold of them through a proxy they'll only be able to access the URL for as long as it is valid. To access your resources post-expiry would require direct access to your secret key. Now, it actually turns out this isn't impossible (since you've probably hard-coded it into your binary), but it's difficult enough that most users won't be bothering with it.
I'd encourage you to be realistic with your security and copyright prevention: when you've got client-side native code it's not a matter of if it gets broken but when.
Ok Advanced SSL gals and guys - I'll be adding a bounty to this after the two-day period as I think it's a complex subject that deserves a reward for anyone who thoughtfully answers.
Some of the assumptions here are simply that: assumptions, or more precisely hopeful guesses. Consider this a brain-teaser, simply saying 'This isn't possible' is missing the point.
Alternative and partial solutions are welcome, personal experience if you've done something 'similar'. I want to learn something from this even if my entire plan is flawed.
Here's the scenario:
I'm developing on an embedded Linux system and want its web server to be able to serve out-of-the-box, no-hassle SSL. Here's the design criteria I'm aiming for:
Must Haves:
I can't have the user add my homegrown CA certificate to their browser
I can't have the user add a statically generated (at mfg time) self-signed certificate to their browser
I can't have the user add a dynamically generated (at boot time) self-signed certificate to their browser.
I can't default to HTTP and have an enable/disable toggle for SSL. It must be SSL.
Both the embedded box and the web browser client may or may not have internet access so must be assumed to function correctly without internet access. The only root CAs we can rely on are the ones shipped with operating system or the browser. Lets pretend that that list is 'basically' the same across browsers and operating systems - i.e. we'll have a ~90% success rate if we rely on them.
I cannot use a fly-by-night operation i.e. 'Fast Eddie's SSL Certificate Clearing House -- with prices this low our servers MUST be hacked!'
Nice to Haves:
I don't want the user warned that the certificate's hostname doesn't match the hostname in the browser. I consider this a nice-to-have because it may be impossible.
Do not want:
I don't want to ship the same set of static keys for each box. Kind of implied by the 'can't' list, but I know the risk.
Yes Yes, I know..
I can and do provide a mechanism for the user to upload their own cert/key but I consider this 'advanced mode' and out of scope of this question. If the user is advanced enough to have their own internal CA or purchase keys then they're awesome and I love them.
Thinking Cap Time
My experience with SSL has been generating cert/keys to be signed by 'real' root, as well as stepping up my game a little bit with making my own internal CA, distributing internally 'self-signed' certs. I know you can chain certificates, but I'm not sure what the order of operations is. i.e. Does the browser 'walk up' the chain see a valid root CA and see that as a valid certificate - or do you need to have verification at every level?
I ran across the description of intermediate certificate authority which got me thinking about potential solutions. I may have gone from 'the simple solution' to 'nightmare mode', but would it be possible to:
Crazy Idea #1
Get an intermediate certificate authority cert signed by a 'real' CA. ( ICA-1 )
ROOT_CA -> ICA-1
This certificate would be used at manufacturing time to generate a unique passwordless sub-intermediate certificate authority pair per box.
ICA-1 -> ICA-2
Use ICA-2 to generate a unique server cert/key. The caveat here is, can you generate a key/pair for an IP (and not a DNS name?)? i.e. A potential use-case for this would be the user connects to the box initially via http, and then redirects the client to the SSL service using the IP in the redirect URL (so that the browser won't complain about mismatches). This could be the card that brings the house down. Since the SSL connection has to be established before any redirects can happen, I can see that also being a problem. But, if that all worked magically
Could I then use the ICA-2 to generate new cert/key pairs any time the box changes IP so that when the web server comes back up it's always got a 'valid' key chain.
ICA-2 -> SP-1
Ok, You're So Smart
Most likely, my convoluted solution won't work - but it'd be great if it did. Have you had a similar problem? What'd you do? What were the trade offs?
Basically, no, you can't do this the way you hope to.
You aren't an intermediate SSL authority, and you can't afford to become one. Even if you were, there's no way in hell you'd be allowed to distribute to consumers everything necessary to create new valid certificates for any domain, trusted by default in all browsers. If this were possible, the entire system would come tumbling down (not that it doesn't already have problems).
You can't generally get the public authorities to sign certificates issued to IP addresses, though there's nothing technically preventing it.
Keep in mind that if you're really distributing the private keys in anything but tamper-proof secured crypto modules, your devices aren't really secured by SSL. Anyone who has one of the devices can pull the private key (especially if it's passwordless) and do valid, signed, MITM attacks on all your devices. You discourage casual eavesdropping, but that's about it.
Your best option is probably to get and sign certificates for a valid internet subdomain, and then get the device to answer for that subdomain. If it's a network device in the outgoing path, you can probably do some routing magic to make it answer for the domain, similarly to how many walled-garden systems work. You could have something like "system432397652.example.com" for each system, and then generate a key for each box that corresponds to that subdomain. Have direct IP access redirect to the domain, and either have the box intercept the request, or do some DNS trickery on the internet so that the domain resolves to the correct internal IP for each client. Use a single-purpose host domain for that, don't share with your other business websites.
Paying more for certificates doesn't really make them any more or less legit. By the time a company has become a root CA, it's far from a fly-by-night operation. You should check and see if StartSSL is right for your needs, since they don't charge on a per-certificate basis.
So I came across this new tag in HTML5, <keygen>. I can't quite figure out what it is for, how it is applied, and how it might affect browser behavior.
I understand that this tag is for form encryption, but what is the difference between <keygen> and having a SSL certificate for your domain. Also, what is the challenge attribute?
I'm not planning on using it as it is far from implemented in an acceptable range of browsers, but I am curious as to what EXACTLY this tag does. All I can find is vague cookie-cutter documentation with no real examples of usage.
Edit:
I have found a VERY informative document, here. This runs through both client-side and server-side implementation of the keygen tag.
I am still curious as to what the benefit of this over a domain SSL certificate would be.
SSL is about "server identification" or "server AND client authentication (mutual authentication)".
In most cases only the server presents its server-certificate during the SSL handshake so that you could make sure that this really is the server you expect to connect to. In some cases the server also wants to verify that you really are the person you pretend to be. For this you need a client-certificate.
The <keygen> tag generates a public/private key pair and then creates a certificate request. This certificate request will be sent to a Certificate Authority (CA). The CA creates a certificate and sends it back to the browser. Now you are able to use this certificate for user authentication.
You're missing some history. keygen was first supported by Netscape when it was still a relevant browser. IE, OTOH, supported the same use cases through its ActiveX APIs. Opera and WebKit (or even KHTML), unwilling to reverse-engineer the entire Win32 API, reverse-engineered keygen instead.
It was specified in Web Forms 2.0 (which has now been merged into the HTML specification), in order to improve interoperability between the browsers that implemented it.
Since then, the IE team has reiterated their refusal to implement keygen, and the specification (in order to avoid turning into dry science fiction) has been changed to not require an actual implementation:
Note: This specification does not
specify what key types user agents are
to support — it is possible for a user
agent to not support any key types at
all.
In short, this is not a new element, and unless you can ignore IE, it's probably not what you want.
If you're looking for "exactly" then I'd recommend reading the RFC.
The keygen element is for creating a key for authentication of the user while SSL is concerned about privacy of communication and the authentication of the server. Quoting from the RFC:
This specification does not specify how the private key generated is to be used. It is expected that after receiving the SignedPublicKeyAndChallenge (SPKAC) structure, the server will generate a client certificate and offer it back to the user for download; this certificate, once downloaded and stored in the key store along with the private key, can then be used to authenticate to services that use TLS and certificate authentication.
Deprecated
This feature has been removed from the Web standards. Though some
browsers may still support it, it is in the process of being dropped.
Avoid using it and update existing code if possible. Be aware that
this feature may cease to work at any time.
Source
The doc is useful to elaborate on what is the keygen element. Its requirement arises in WebID that maybe understood to be part of Semantic Web of Linked Data as seen at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/index-respec.html#creating-a-certificate 2.1.1
This might be useful for websites that provide services, where people need to pay for the service, like video on demand, or news website for professionals like Bloomberg. With this keys people can only watch the content in their computer and not in simultaneous computers! You decide how data is stored and processed. you can specify a .asp or .php file that will receive the variables and your file will store that key in the user profile. This way your users will not be able to log in from a different computer if you want. You may force them to check their email to authorize that new computer, just like steam does. Basically it allows to individualize service access, if your licensing model is per machine, like Operating System.
You can check the specs here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/keygen.html
When faced by an untrusted certificate, every single browser I know displays a blaring error like this:
Why is that?
This strongly discourages web developers to use an awesome technology like SSL out of fears that users will find the website extremely shady. Ilegitimate (ie: phishing) sites do fine on HTTP, so that can't be a concern.
Why do they make it look like such a big deal? Isn't having SSL even if untrusted better than not having it at all?
It looks like I am being misunderstood. I am taking issue with the fact that HTTP sites cannot be more secure than an HTTPS site, even if untrusted. HTTP doesn't do encryption or identification. Phishers can make their sites on HTTP and no warnings are shown. In good faith, I am at the very least encrypting traffic. How can that be a bad thing?
They do that because a SSL certificate isn't just meant to secure the communication over the wire. It is also a means to identify the source of the content that is being secured (secured content coming from a man in the middle attack via a fake cert isn't very helpful).
Unless you have a third party validate that you are who you say you are, there's no good reason to trust that your information (which is being sent over SSL) is any more secure than if you weren't using SSL in the first place.
SSL provides for secure communication between client and server by allowing mutual authentication, the use of digital signatures for integrity, and encryption for privacy.
(apache ssl docs)
Yep, I don't see anything about third party certificate authorities that all browsers should recognize as "legit." Of course, that's just the way the world is, so if you don't want people to see a scary page, you've got to get a cert signed by someone the browsers will recognize.
or
If you're just using SSL for a small group of individuals or for in-house stuff, you can have people install your root cert in their browser as a trusted cert. This would work fairly well on a lan, where a network admin could install it across the entire network.
It may sound awkward to suggest sending your cert to people to install, but if you think about it, what do you trust more: a cert that came with your browser because that authority paid their dues, or a cert sent to you personally by your server admin / account manager / inside contact?
Just for shits and giggles I thought I'd include the text displayed by the "Help me understand" link in the screenshot in the OP...
When you connect to a secure website, the server hosting that site presents your browser with something called a "certificate" to verify its identity. This certificate contains identity information, such as the address of the website, which is verified by a third party that your computer trusts. By checking that the address in the certificate matches the address of the website, it is possible to verify that you are securely communicating with the website you intended, and not a third party (such as an attacker on your network).
For a domain mismatch (for example trying to go to a subdomain on a non-wildcard cert), this paragraph follows:
In this case, the address listed in the certificate does not match the address of the website your browser tried to go to. One possible reason for this is that your communications are being intercepted by an attacker who is presenting a certificate for a different website, which would cause a mismatch. Another possible reason is that the server is set up to return the same certificate for multiple websites, including the one you are attempting to visit, even though that certificate is not valid for all of those websites. Chromium can say for sure that you reached , but cannot verify that that is the same site as foo.admin.example.com which you intended to reach. If you proceed, Chromium will not check for any further name mismatches. In general, it is best not to proceed past this point.
If the cert isn't signed by a trusted authority, these paragraphs follow instead:
In this case, the certificate has not been verified by a third party that your computer trusts. Anyone can create a certificate claiming to be whatever website they choose, which is why it must be verified by a trusted third party. Without that verification, the identity information in the certificate is meaningless. It is therefore not possible to verify that you are communicating with admin.example.com instead of an attacker who generated his own certificate claiming to be admin.example.com. You should not proceed past this point.
If, however, you work in an organization that generates its own certificates, and you are trying to connect to an internal website of that organization using such a certificate, you may be able to solve this problem securely. You can import your organization's root certificate as a "root certificate", and then certificates issued or verified by your organization will be trusted and you will not see this error next time you try to connect to an internal website. Contact your organization's help staff for assistance in adding a new root certificate to your computer.
Those last paragraphs make a pretty good answer to this question I think. ;)
The whole point of SSL is that you can verify that the site is who it says it is. If the certificate cannot be trusted, then it's highly likely that the site is not who it says it is.
An encrypted connection is really just a side-benefit in that respect (that is, you can encrypt the connection without the use of certificates).
People assume that https connections are secure, good enough for their credit card details and important passwords. A man-in-the-middle can intercept the SSL connection to your bank or paypal and provide you with their own self-signed or different certificate instead of the bank's real certificate. It's important to warn people loudly if such an attack might be taking place.
If an attacker uses a false certificate for the bank's domain, and gets it signed by some dodgy CA that does not check things properly, he may be able to intercept SSL traffic to your bank and you will be none the wiser, just a little poorer. Without the popup warning, there's no need for a dodgy CA, and internet banking and e-commerce would be totally unsafe.
Why is that?
Because most people don't read. They don't what what https means. A big error is MANDATORY to make people read it.
This strongly discourages web developers to use an awesome technology like SSL out of fears that users will find the website extremely shady.
No it doesn't. Do you have any evidence for that? That claim is ridiculous.
This strongly encourages developers and users to know whom they are dealing with.
"fears that users will find the website extremely shady"
What does this even mean? Do you mean "fears that lack of a certificate means that users will find the website extremely shady"?
That's not a "fear": that's the goal.
The goal is that "lack of a certificate means that users will find the website extremely shady" That's the purpose.
Judging from your comments, I can see that you're confused between what you think people are saying and what they are really saying.
Why do they make it look like such a big deal? Isn't having SSL even if untrusted better than not having it at all?
But why do they have to show the error? Sure, an "untrusted" cert can't be guaranteed to be more secure than no SSL, but it can't be less secure.
If you are solely interested in an encrypted connection, yes this is true. But SSL is designed for an additional goal: identification. Thus, certificates.
I am not talking about certs that don't match the domain (yes, that is pretty bad). I am talking about certs signed by authorities not in the browser's trusted CA's (eg: self-signed)
How can you trust the certificate if it is not trusted by anyone you trust?
Edit
The need to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks arises because you are trying to establish a privileged connection.
What you need to understand is that with plain HTTP, there is absolutely no promise of security, and anyone can read the contents passed over the connection. Therefore, you don't pass any sensitive information. There is no need for a warning because you are not transferring sensitive information.
When you use HTTPS, the browser assumes you will be transferring sensitive information, otherwise you would be using plain HTTP. Therefore, it makes a big fuss when it cannot verify the server's identity.
Why is that?
Because if there's a site that's pretending to be a legit site, you really want to know about it as a user!
Look, a secure connection to the attacker is no damn good at all, and every man and his dog can make a self-signed certificate. There's no inherent trust in a self-signed cert from anyone, except for the trust roots you've got installed in your browser. The default set of trust roots is picked (carefully!) by the browser maker with the aim that only CAs who only act in a way to secure trust will be trusted by the system, and this mostly works. You can add your own trust roots too, and if you're using a private CA for testing then you should.
This strongly discourages web developers to use an awesome technology like SSL out of fears that users will find the website extremely shady. Ilegitimate (ie: phishing) sites do fine on HTTP, so that can't be a concern.
What?! You can get a legit certificate for very little. You can set up your own trust root for free (plus some work). Anyone developing and moaning about this issue is just being lazy and/or over-cheap and I've no sympathy for such attitudes.
Ideally a browser would look for information that you want kept secure (such as things that look like credit card numbers) and throw that sort of warning up if there was an attempt to send that data over an insecure or improperly-secured channel. Alas, it's hard to know from just inspection whether data is private or not; just as there's no such thing as an EVIL bit, there's also no PRIVATE bit. (Maybe a pervasive metadata system could do it… Yeah, right. Forget it.) So they just do the best they can and flag up situations where it is extremely likely that there's a problem.
Why do they make it look like such a big deal? Isn't having SSL even if untrusted better than not having it at all?
What threat model are you dealing with?
Browser makers have focused on the case where anyone can synthesize an SSL certificate (because that's indeed the case) and DNS hacks are all too common; what the combination of these means is that you can't know that the IP address you've got for a host name corresponds to the legitimate owner of that domain, and anyone can claim to own that domain. Ah, but you instead trust a CA to at least check that they're issuing the certificate to the right person and that in turn is enough (plus a few other things) to make it possible to work out whether you're talking to the legitimate owner of the domain; it provides a basis for all the rest of the trust involved in a secure conversation. Hopefully the bank will have used other unblockable communications (e.g., a letter sent by post) to tell people to check that the identity of the site is right (EV certs help a little here) but that's still a bit of a band-aid given how unsuspicious some users are.
The problems with this come from CAs who don't apply proper checks (frankly, they ought to be kicked off the gravy train for failing their duty) and users who'll tell anyone anything. You can't stop them from deliberately posting their own CC# on a public message board run by some shady characters from Smolensk[1], no matter how stupid an idea that is…
[1] Not that there's anything wrong with that city. The point would be the same if you substituted with Tallahassee, Ballarat, Lagos, Chonqing, Bogota, Salerno, Durban, Mumbai, … There are scum all over.