in order to obtain google maps API Key, i am running the keytool command, Java version 7. the command creates a fingerprint in SHA1 digest format by default. when i try to obtain API key by entering this fingerprint (SHA1), i always get an error message from the Google site. The site expects an MD5 format fingerprint. Any workaround possible, guys?
regards,
Kowshik
Use this command:
keytool -v -list -alias xxx -keystore xxx
This -v will show u all three hash code algorithms, such as MD5, SHA1 and SHA256.
Related
I'm adding automatic upgrades to an application of mine. I need code-signing for this, or else automatic upgrades could be an attack vector. I need the signing and verification to be doable with "openssl" commands, since my application can run on any platform, and OpenSSL is available on any platform. However, when I try to verify a timestamp with openssl, with the code-signing certificate I bought from Comodo, I get the error "Verify error:unable to get local issuer certificate". The commands I run are as follows:
First, I extract the private key and the certificates from the .p12 file from Comodo, with the following:
openssl pkcs12 -in full-certs-from-comodo.p12 -nocerts -out private-key.pem
openssl pkcs12 -in full-certs-from-comodo.p12 -nokeys -out certs.pem
Then, to query and verify a timestamp, I run:
openssl ts -query -data mydata.tar.gz -cert -CAfile certs.pem -sha256 -out request-256.tsq
cat request-256.tsq | curl -s -S --data-binary #- -H 'Content-Type: application/timestamp-query' 'http://timestamp.comodoca.com?td=sha256' > response-256.tsr
openssl ts -verify -sha256 -in response-256.tsr -data mydata.tar.gz -CAfile certs.pem
This is the full error that results:
Verification: FAILED
140710242829968:error:2F06D064:time stamp routines:TS_VERIFY_CERT:certificate verify error:ts_rsp_verify.c:246:Verify error:unable to get local issuer certificate
Comodo tech support can't solve it, and I've been communicating with them for a month now. Digicert says they can only sign certain kinds of files, and those don't include a .tar.gz file. *sigh*
I've never used code-signing before, but that doesn't sound right to me, unless Digicert is adding artificial restrictions. Can't I hash any file, sign the hash with a private key, and then verify it on the user end with the public key? I don't think it should be this hard. What don't I understand?
Anyway, I'd love to get this working even with a paid certificate vendor, but failing that I'm wondering if I can just create my own key pair (a la PGP) and use that. I guess I wouldn't be able to revoke the certificate; are there any other downsides? In particular, does anyone see any reduced security by doing it this way? I do need very good security for this app.
The application is a Perl script and normally runs on a Web server, i.e. usually a *nix platform, but can also run on Windows.
Thanks! I appreciate any clues in getting this working at all, in any way, paid or not. I can't be the first person to need this kind of code-signing, but Comodo and Digicert tech support seemingly haven't heard of it at all.
Maybe not an answer but definitely too much for comments.
Aside: OpenSSL is available on many platforms, but not all. Although you only care about platforms where your app can be installed, and perl is already pretty demanding of platforms and can't be installed anywhere near everywhere.
More Important: code-signing and trusted timestamping are different and separate things, although sometimes used together: some codesigning schemes like Microsoft and Java encourage (but don't require) you to get a trusted timestamp on the (code) signature; I'm not sure about Apple, or Android. In particular you can't (validly) use a code-signing cert for timestamping, or verifying timestamps, and if you can get a timestamping cert (you probably can't meet the requirements to be trusted by anyone besides yourself, see below) you can't use it for signing or verifying code. Although the error you got on ts is probably not because of this misuse but because you did something else wrong, but you don't tell us what you did, and imagining and describing the very many things you could possibly have done wrong would take far more than is justified for or even fits in a single Stack answer.
The cert can't restrict what you can sign, but it may restrict where that signature will be trusted. In particular for Microsoft Authenticode, only a cert from a CA specifically approved by Microsoft will work. And I believe Apple only trusts certs they themselves issue.
Yes, if you control both/all ends you don't need a 'real' cert; the (only) value of a trusted-thirdparty CA, and certs from it, is allowing your system(s) and/or code to trust data or code from those of other people, and/or other people's to trust yours, under known and more or less reasonable conditions. You presumably trust yourself entirely, unless you're Michael Garibaldi. If you use OpenSSL's 'primitive' signing functions (commandline dgst -sign/verify or rsautl/pkeyutl -sign/verify, or the equivalent library calls) you only need the two keys, private and public. If you use CMS (aka PKCS7) or S/MIME signatures you need a cert, but it can be a self-signed cert with any identity information, true or false, you feel like putting in it.
I'm trying to use a free ssl certificate(s?) I got from wosign in node.js, but I'm having some issues.
I'm creating my server with:
var server = https.createServer({key: serviceKey, cert: certificate}, httpHandler).listen(port)
which works fine with my self-signed certificate. To allow wosign to generate a certificate, I gave them the CSR that was generated alongside my self-signed certificate. They gave me the following files:
root.crt
3_user_my.domain.crt
2_issuer_Intermediate.crt
1_cross_Intermediate.crt
I've also read through the following couple sources to help me along:
https://www.ohling.org/blog/2015/02/wosign-free-2y-ssl-certificate.html
http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/41289/free-chinese-2-year-ssl-certificate-dv-kuaissl-by-wosign-com
Both mention that the "order" of the certificates is important, but I don't know what they mean there. I assumed that there would be a single certificate I could replace my self-signed certificate with. If there's an order, I assume it goes 1->2->3 as those numbers are in the filenames.
I replaced my certificate with the 3_user_my.domain.crt contents, and it works like my self-signed one - chrome says it should only work on localhost.
So how do I "order" these certs and ultimately how do I use the files given to me so that browsers will recognize it correctly?
Ok, I got it working.
A. I learned that the "certificate" used actually can be multiple certificates (crt files that only have one -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- and one -----END CERTIFICATE-----. So in order to make it work right, I needed to create one certificate file/string that contained 3 of the 4 certificates I got in the right order (apparently the root.crt isn't useful)
B1. The English set of certificate wosign gave me didn't match my private key, which I verified using the following:
openssl x509 -noout -modulus -in yourcertificate.crt | openssl md5
openssl rsa -noout -modulus -in private.key | openssl md5
# If both outputs match, the cert matches the key, otherwise they don't
B2. So I chose the chinese certificate option, and there was a much different set of certs in the archive I got from that. I used the bundled cert for NGINX. And that works!
My immediate certificate on https://paper-shape.com got a weak signature algorithm SHA1: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=paper-shape.com
I followed theses instructions. I created my pfx file both per OpenSSL and per certificate export wizard.
The CRT and pem (immediate certificate from startcom) seem to be ok, because the following command shows "Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption" on both (CRT and PEM):
$ openssl x509 -text -in paper-shape.com.crt
Either something went wrong during my pfx creation process or azure website overrules my immediate certificate.
Has anybody an idea?
Check your locally-installed certificates (on Windows, 'certmgr.msc'). You may have an old SHA-1-signed copy of the StartCom intermediate certificate which is still valid (say, to 2017) and being used in preference to that provided by the server.
You can find (and chain) the SHA-256 intermediate certificate for Class-1 in PEM format, here: https://www.startssl.com/certs/class1/sha2/pem/sub.class1.server.sha2.ca.pem
I have been facing this same problem, I was about to pull my hair out when the certificate seemed to be right in some browsers and OS and in others it claimed I was using SHA-1 and even https://shaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com was telling me that I had a SHA-2 signed crt.
So! Here is a huge thread in StartCom forum about this issue: https://forum.startcom.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15929&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
The thing is that the browser is using an Intermediate crt that is SHA-1 signed.
The solution: you need to configurate the Intermadiate crt in your server!
You can see more details here:
https://sslmate.com/blog/post/chrome_cached_sha1_chains
I need to use a password to login to MySQL DB. But the password is stored in AES encryption algorithm.
The login will be:
AES_PASSWORD=2hhbdhbdhbdbh (the encrypted password in AES)
mysql -uroot -p$(AES_PASSWORD)
How do I decrypt this in shell and use it? I searched in other similar queries, and couldn't find anything related to AES.
You need to know more than just the password's AES string. You need to know which AES it was encrypted with, for example, and the key or password used to encrypt it.
But lets say you you're using aes256 and know the password is "secret". You can do this:
DECODED=`echo $AES_PASSWORD | openssl enc -d -a -aes256 -pass pass:secret`
And then call mysql with $DECODED as the password argument instead.
This may or may not be the best way to invoke mysql, however, as the password appears on the command line in plain text when someone looks at the process list with 'ps'.
Are asymmetrical cryptographic keys fundamentally inter-convertible between the major key container formats? For example, can I convert an X.509 key file into a PGP or OpenGPG key file?
And--assuming the answer is yes--is it "security neutral" to keep one key pair in whatever format and convert into whichever container file format is needed for the occasion?
I'm getting a little tired of maintaining so many key pairs for X.509, OpenGPG, and SSH, when they're all RSA at the heart.
Yes and no: yes, the RSA keys embedded into certificates and privkeys are just numbers. You can extract them from the certificate and use them to build keys in other formats. This is commonly done to convert between different certificate formats.
PGP has some support for X.509 for S/MIME, but no ability to use X.509 privkeys verbatim.
SSH has some beta support for directly using X.509 keys and certificates.
You will found how to convert kes between these containers there:
http://sysmic.org/dotclear/index.php?post/2010/03/24/Convert-keys-betweens-GnuPG,-OpenSsh-and-OpenSSL
I'd also have a look at OpenSSL. It has so many different -in and -out functions that will likely be able to convert certs. from one type to the other.
Have a look at http://marc.info/?l=openssl-users&m=105162569405053&w=2