According to X.509 standard private key signature has to generate same encrypted message for ever?Am I right?
In order to avoid coping which data field in digital certificate will be changed?
they can't process the information of the user, but by coping the digital signature generated by private key and keeping along with the webpage attacker can say that I am certified by the CA and web browser will agree with that information.Is it true?
Version number,Serial number,Certificate algorithm identifier,Issuer name,Validity period,Subject name,Subject public key information Issuer unique identifier,Subject unique identifier,Extensions,Certification authority's digital signature.
These are the fields in digital certificate,if this fields don't change for ever,encrypted value will be same for ever.If I go to gmail it sends Encrypted digital certificate.If I use that Encrypted digital certificate in my webpage cant I say I am owner of gmail.but I can't use information send by the user since I won't have private key
A certificate must be signed by a CA in order to be considered as valid. The contents of the certificate is hashed, then encrypted by the CA's private key. Anyone can then validate whether the certificate is valid by decrypting the signature with the CA's public key, and verifying whether the hash matches.
The signature verifies that a particular name is associated with a particular public key - even if someone copied the certificate file verbatim, they wouldn't know the private key corresponding to that public key, and so they couldn't use it to impersonate the owner of the certificate.
I was wondering the same question.
Reading #Anon.'s answer led me to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#Description
The handshake begins when a client connects to a TLS-enabled server
requesting a secure connection and the client presents a list of
supported cipher suites (ciphers and hash functions).
From this list, the server picks a cipher and hash function that it
also supports and notifies the client of the decision.
The server usually then sends back its identification in the form of a
digital certificate. The certificate contains the server name, the
trusted certificate authority (CA) that vouches for the authenticity
of the certificate, and the server's public encryption key.
The client confirms the validity of the certificate before proceeding.
To generate the session keys used for the secure connection, the
client either:
encrypts a random number with the server's public key
and sends the result to the server (which only the server should be
able to decrypt with its private key); both parties then use the
random number to generate a unique session key for subsequent
encryption and decryption of data during the session or
uses Diffie-Hellman key exchange to securely generate a random and unique
session key for encryption and decryption that has the additional
property of forward secrecy: if the server's private key is disclosed
in future, it cannot be used to decrypt the current session, even if
the session is intercepted and recorded by a third party.
It looks like in your forgery example (that I was wondered also) the client confirms the certificate successfully in paragraph 4. And then in paragraph 5 they fail to agree on session key as the server cannot read client's random number.
Related
I am searching the algorithm about how SSL validation process is performed, but almost everywhere, they explain the certificate validation step as "certificate is checked by client" or something like that, but I wonder what is the scenario behind this.
What I know is:
When the client receives a copy of the certificate that belongs to which website/server you wanna attempt to handshake, there are some indicators that shows the public information of webserver (I think this is for matching the entries in your cached certificate entries, which your browser has installed.)
Once the client matchs a cached-certificate with the webserver's one, it starts validating it. It uses the public key of cached-certificate to decrypt the signature of webserver's one.(? [Not sure this because public keys are used to "encrypt" the data, not decrypt. Also this step may be totally wrong.])
Once it decrypts, it compares the signature between cached one and webserver's one. If it is same, certificate is valid.
I also heard about chains. I really wonder how a chain is known, and how to determine if the webserver's certificate just belongs to a chain.(?)
How SSL certificates are checked by client? I need the answer as step by step and clarified. Thanks :)
Edit:
I think the public key here is used for "decrypting" instead of "encrypting". So a public key is not responsible for encrypting everytime, it can also decrypt and don't encrypt some data. The magic here is that since the public key decrypts here, if you want to fake the certificate, you should have that CA's private key to apply the changes as encrypted (because only private key can encrypt the data). But now, another question comes... What if we decrypt it using webserver's public key, then change the entries in the signature, then encrypt it again using our own private key (we generate it manually, it doesn't belong to server.), which actually make us behave like a CA; and finally overwrite the certificate to hold our own public key which is able to decrypt the data encrypted with our own private key?
There is differences between Encryption and Signature.
Public Key is used by the client to encrypt data that only the server can decrypt with the Private Key of the server.
Public Key is used by the client to verify the signature of the data send by the Server that can only be signed by the Private Key of the server.
When the client wants to access a server, the server send you a certificate containing a public key. The client usually the web browser will check in his integrated CA's list certificates if it contains it.
If it contains it, the client continue and get the CA(Certificate authority)'s that authorized this certificate.
If it not found but the verification of the signature pass, the client will get a warning saying that the certificate is probably self signed and can be malicious.
If the client can't verify the signature, it means the certificate is not valid.
for the chain of trust you can check wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_trust
you need to be in this chain of trust to be register in the web broswer integrated "database" of CA's.
Hope it answers your question, best regards,
M
Put it simple:
Private Key -> Decrypt and Sign
Public Key -> Encrypt and Verify
Certification Authority
Is the authority that signs and guarantees the authenticity of the certification. If you trust the CA, then you trust also its certificates.
It's the same for friends: if you have a friend that you trust and this tells you "I have a friend that I trust", then you also trust the friend of your friend.
Chain of Certificate Authority.
You can have multiple intermediate CA, for example, you can have
Root Certification Authority
Intermediate Certification Authority for WebServer signed by Root Certification Authority
Web Server Certificate signed by Intermediate Certification Authority for WebServer
Intermediate Certification Authority for signing code, signed by Root Certification Authority
Etc
Why?
Because in case one of the intermediate authorities is compromised you can revoke only its child certificates.
At the enterprise level, each CA has a different level of security, for example, the Root Certification Authority can be stored inside a safe and used only when there are two o more admins.
For the intermediate, instead, maybe only one Admin can manage it.
References
How SSL Works
How HTTPS Works
Wht digital certificates
I'm doing my best to understand mutual SSL. One question I can't find a good answer to is why you need to create a key pair on the client instead of just providing a public client certificate.
So far I understand the following (very oversimplified):
Regular SSL:
The server has a key pair and sends the public part (certificate) so the client can use that public key to encrypt messages so they can share a symmetric key and eventually secure all communication.
To verify that the server is actually the server the issuer of the certificate has to be trusted (in a truststore) of the client by default.
Mutual SSL:
Exactly the same, only this time the server asks the client to authenticate itself.
The client sends its public certificate, which is verified against some kind of list of "known certificates" on the server. If it matches, communication can continue.
I don't understand why I have to include the entire key pair (the private part as well) in the key store I use on the client side. Where is the client's private key used in the process?
The server has a key pair and sends the public part (certificate) so the client can use that public key to encrypt messages so they can share a symmetric key and eventually secure all communication.
That's not the main point of the server certificate and with modern key exchange methods (i.e. Diffie-Hellman) the certificate is not involved at all in the key exchange. What you describe is only true for the obsolete RSA key exchange.
The main point of the certificate is to be used for authentication. Authentication means that the server proves that it owns the provided certificate and then that the client verifies that the certificate matches its expectations, i.e. issued by a trusted CA, expected subject/SAN, not expired etc.
The proof of ownership is done by signing some data (which is at least in part provided by the peer, i.e. client) with the private key matching the public key in the certificate. The peer (client) then can verify this signature using the public key of the certificate and if the verification passes the other side (server) is obviously in possession of the secret private key which means it owns the certificate.
With a client certificate used in mutual authentication the procedure is exactly the same, only with switched roles. That's why the private key is needed on the client side.
I aks myself if it is possible to copy the server certificate to another server to misuse it. Example: An attacker visits https website X and copies the X.509 certificate. He placed the stolen X.509 certificate on his own server and would like being trustworthy.
Of course, the attacker does not have the private key, but the private key is only required to decrypt the encrypted message from the client. In terms of authentification there is no reason to be doubtfully. Or?
The server responses with the X.509 certificate. The client receives the certificate and validates successfully using the stored root certificates. Why should the server not be authentificated? Only when the client sends an encrypted message using the public key the server is not able to decrypt the message - because he does not own the private key.
It is right so far?
Only when the client sends an encrypted message using the public key the server is not able to decrypt the message - because he does not own the private key.
The server also needs the private key to sign messages being sent to the client.
The SSL/TLS handshake protocol itself effectively involves such an authenticated message being sent to the client. If the private key is unavailable then this step will fail before any 'real' payload message gets sent.
Why should the server not be authentificated?
The certificate is tied to a domain name.
The web browser will download the certificate and validate it. One of the steps in the validation is to compare the domain the certificate is for to the domain that the browser actually downloaded it from. If there is a mismatch (and there will be, since the attacker is on their own domain, not the original site's domain) then the browser will present the user with a certificate error and ask them to make the call about whether or not to accept it.
You're probably used to seeing this in action on bad web server configurations. Ever seen an error saying, "This certificate was intended for www.example.com" when you were trying to visit "example.com"?
Of course, the attacker does not have the private key, but the private key is only required to decrypt the encrypted message from the client.
Public/private key pairs have other uses than that. In this case, the private key signs the certificate and the public key verifies it. There is no encryption involved. (What you described is more like a normal encryption scheme, like RSA.)
No, the certificate is a pubic element and it is just a way to bind a public key to a name (here, a DNS name). During the authentication process (in the TLS protocol) the server sends its certificate along with signs some data with the associated private key. In order to verify that the server is the legitimate owner of the certificate, the client have to verify the validity of this signature with the sent certificate. A rogue server can try to use the certificate but without the private key it cannot prove it is the real holder.
First of all, I apologize for sending yet another question about this seeing as there are so many related posts. After reading through them and related sites I'm still not clear on a few points.
Browser connects to server through secure socket
Server responds with its public key with its certificate. This is the step I have the most trouble with. In this message from server to client, can the certificate be easily separated from the server's public key? If it's a root certificate (one which is already included in the browser) then a man-in-the-middle can't fake it, but what if it's not? Can't whatever this online mechanism the client uses to verify the certificate be hijacked? Furthermore, if the client's computer is compromised, the root CA's can be compromised, right? Any steps that avoid this? One last thing: It is said that a certificate is insecure until signed. I can't figure out what this means, especially since a certificate can sign itself. I think it's supposed to mean that someone is assuring the authenticity of the message, so a certificate signing itself sounds insecure ("Are you a REAL certificate?"..."ummm, sure, sure I am"). If the mechanism for authenticating a certificate is the internet, I'm wondering how is that secure. Is signing a certificate the same as thing (literally) as saying the client verifies the certificate?
Session key is encrypted with public key and sent to server. This session key is a symmetric key that both server and client will use for remainder of encrypted communication.
I must say, most information online is so vague. So many holes in explanations and hand-waving going on. My guess is that very few people know the actual mechanisms very well?
You've left out several steps. One of them is that the server sends a digital signature over the entire handshake so far, signed with its private key. Only the server can do that, with its own certificate. Nobody else's. The client verifies the digital signature using the public key in the certificate that was sent. That proves that the server owns the certificate. It also proves that the server is the same entity that sent all the other handshake messages.
BTW your step 3 is imaginary. The session key is never sent at all. It is computed independently at both ends.
EDIT Comments on your answer:
Server (from JoesGoods) gets a certificate from the CA via?
Usually via an Internet browser.
Can this be hijacked?
No more than any other secure SSL session can be.
The certificate is "signed"
Correct.
which means a bit of it is encrypted using the CA's private key.
No. You made that up.
Specifically the bit that has the web server's info (JoesGoods' server info)
No. You made that up.
The entire certificate is signed, and that does not mean 'encrypted', with the CA's private key.
Bob's browser connects to server through a secure socket and sends a "hello" packet.
The socket isn't secure at this point. It's just plaintext.
The server sends its public key and certificate to Bob.
No. The server sends its certificate. The public key is already inside the certificate.
the browser checks that the webserver (JoesGoods) matches what's in the signed portion of the certificate
The entire certificate is signed. The client checks that the server it is connecting to matches the subjectDN of the certificate.
The webserver's public key is also signed with the CA's private key
Because it's in the certificate. Otherwise there is no other way this can be accomplished. That's why it isn't sent separately, and it's also why the entire certificate is signed, not just the bits you like.
The browser sends a client key exchange packet to the webserver (JoesGoods) using the webserver's public key included in step (2).
This part is cipher suite-dependent. What you have described applies to RSA cipher suites. Diffie-Hellman is a different story, and there is room for expansion to include others.
This client key is used to generate symmetric keys to conduct the remainder of the exchange. This client key is called a "premaster secret" and is a random key. Since the symmetric keys are created using this key, I wonder why not just send the symmetric key itself since the connection is encrypted and validated at this point.
Because it wouldn't be nearly as secure.
You also have some of these steps out of order.
I really don't see the point of enumerating all these steps informally when they are already completely specified in RFC 2246. There's enough misinformation about TLS floating around the Internet already, such as this piece of unmaintained drivel.
My question is about certificates specifically in ssl but I think the questions should apply to all certificates. I have included the SSL procedure for the sake of clarity.
In SSL this is what I understand the procedure is:
1)Client
sends supported crypto algorithms
sends client nonce
Server
chooses (and sends) a
symmetric algorithm
a public key algorithm
a MAC algorithm
sends it's certificate
sends server nonce
Client
verifies certificate
Extracts public key
Generates a pre-master secret key (pms)
encrypts with servers public key and sends
Client and Server
compute master secrete (MS) from PMS and nonces
PMS sliced to generate two encryption & two mac keys
Client
sends a mac of all handshakes (to ensure they were not previously modifide)
Server
sends a mac of all handshakes
Question
What stops a man in the middle attack from happening at step two? Why can't a man in the middle, say trudy, capture the certificate sent by the server and change the public key in it (to something it has the private key to).
I assume that the certificate is encrypted somehow.
However the server cannot encrypt the certificate because the client does not have the public key yet. When the server gets the key from an authority (like veri-sign) would the key be pre-encrypted using verisign's public key? I think this should work because all web browsers should have the public keys of most authorities.
No, the certificate is not encrypted. But it is signed by a certification authority (CA). Since those check the information included in the certificate (especially the URL to which the cert belongs), there shouldn't be a second valid certificate for a given URL.
The cert of the CA is checked against a trust store (e.g. in your browser). If this truststore is compromised, or if you trust not valid certificates, there is no protection against man in the middle attacks
Certificates are signed by some trusted authority, such as Verisign.
The certificates for these root authorities are built right into the browsers when you download them. You can view the root certificates in Firefox, for example, by going to tools-->options-->advanced-->encryption-->view certificates-->authorities.
If any one of these root-certificate authorities is compromised, however, you are right that a certificate could be forged, making a man-in-the-middle attack possible.
You actually pointed out a weak spot of PKI.
Say Trudy is in the middle of you and yourbank (bank.com). Trudy can change the public key at will at step 2 but the certificate's signature will be invalid. So Trudy has to find a way to generate the signature again. It's safe to say that the trusted CAs will not do this for him. So he has to sign with a fake CA, which is not trusted by your browser. This is still safe theoretically.
However, most browsers (especially IE 6) display a vague security warning and most people don't understand and just ignore, according to some tests.