PKI Consortium blog

How Organizations Are Authenticated for SSL Certificates
November 22, 2013 by Kirk Hall (Entrust) CA/Browser Forum CSR DV EV Identity OV Phishing Policy SSL/TLS

Certification Authorities (CAs) are trusted third parties that authenticate customers before issuing SSL certificates to secure their servers.

Exactly how do CAs authenticate these organizations? And where are the rules that determine what CAs must do during authentication?

The Rules on Customer Authentication

In the past, there were no common rules applicable to CAs as to minimum steps required to authenticate a customer before issuing an SSL certificate. Instead, each CA was permitted to create its own authentication processes, and was only required to describe the process in general terms in its public Certification Practice Statement (CPS). In many cases, the CPS authentication description was vague and hard to understand, and some CAs were less diligent than others during authentication.

Improving Code Signing
November 14, 2013 by Jeremy Rowley CA/Browser Forum Code Signing Identity Malware SSL/TLS

Previously, we discussed how code signing certificates play a key role in the trust framework by proving the authenticity of software. As mentioned, code signing certificates act as a certification that the software was unmodified after publication. Although current code signing practices greatly reduce the threats of malware and adware embedded in signed objects, the sophistication of threats has risen and there is a need for improvement. When code signing was new, skilled criminal hackers were the exception and script kiddies were the norm. Now, the skill level and sophistication of criminal networks, and even nation states, have advanced to the point where customized malware is being used to penetrate company networks, steal valuable information, and even tamper with sensitive infrastructure.

Certificate Chains, Key Management and the Number of CAs Counted by Web Crawlers – Oh My
November 4, 2013 by Ryan Hurst CRL Microsoft OCSP PKI Policy Revocation SSL/TLS

Have you ever wondered why your web server certificate has a “chain” of other certificates associated with it?

The main reason is so that browsers can tell if your certificate was issued by an organization that has been verified to meet the security, policy and operational practices that all Publicly Trusted Certificate Authorities are mandated to meet. That certificate at the top of the chain is commonly called the “root.” It’s signature on a certificate below it indicates that the organization operating the root believes that practices of the CA below it meets that same high bar.

Securing Software Distribution with Digital Code Signing
October 16, 2013 by Bruce Morton (Entrust), Jeremy Rowley CASC Code Signing Malware SSL/TLS

Code signing certificates from publicly trusted Certification Authorities (CAs) fulfill a vital need for authentication of software distributed over the Internet in our interconnected world. As the commonly referred to “Internet of things” continues to grow, consumers have access to millions of applications for their desktops, laptops, and mobile devices. Creative software engineers provide us with applications to cover any of our potential needs or interests. Cybercriminals and others with malicious intent recognize this as an opportunity and seek to trick us into installing malicious software (malware) — programs that hijack our computers, steal our money, or try to inflict harm.

Certificate Authority Audits and Browser Root Program Requirements
October 15, 2013 by Kirk Hall (Entrust) AICPA CA/Browser Forum CASC ETSI EV ISO ITU Microsoft Policy Qualified Root Program SSL/TLS WebTrust

Recent news stories have highlighted the need for strong security in online communications, and use of SSL certificates issued by a publicly trusted Certification Authority (CA) is perhaps the best way to achieve that. But why should the public trust SSL certificates issued from commercial CA roots, which are embedded as trust anchors in web browsers?

One answer is because of the multiple layers of standards and tough requirements that all commercial CAs must meet – and for which they are audited every year. These standards and requirements have increased from year to year over the past decade.

The (Soon to Be) Not-So Common Name
October 8, 2013 by Ryan Hurst CA/Browser Forum CRL Encryption Identity IETF Revocation SSL/TLS Vulnerability

If you are reading this post you are probably already familiar with the use of digital certificates and SSL even if you may not be familiar with the history. Before exploring the history of SSL, let’s review at its core what a digital certificate actually is. Fundamentally, a digital certificate is the binding of entitlements and constraints to a key, in other words a digital certificate would dictate the following, “The holder of the private key associated with this certificate can rightfully use the name John Smith when signing emails.”

What is Certification Authority Authorization?
September 25, 2013 by Rick Andrews CAA IETF Policy SSL/TLS

DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA), defined in IETF draft RFC 6844, is designed to allow a DNS domain name holder (a website owner) to specify the certificate signing certificate(s) authorized to issue certificates for that domain or website. Usually, the certificate signing certificate will belong to the Certification Authority (CA) that issues SSL certificates to you. It’s a way for you to indicate which CA or CAs you want to issue certificates for your domains. Using CAA could reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-issuance, either by malicious actors or by honest mistake.

It’s Time for TLS 1.2
September 19, 2013 by Wayne Thayer Attack BEAST Chrome Firefox OCSP RC4 SHA2 SSL 3.0 SSL/TLS TLS 1.0 TLS 1.1 TLS 1.2 Vulnerability

In a previous post titled Getting the Most Out of SSL Part 2, we touched on the recommendation that Web servers be configured to prefer Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.2. With the planned release of Firefox 24 and recent release of Chrome 29 adding support for TLS 1.2, now is a great time for website administrators to make the switch.

Transport Layer Security was formerly called Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and is the protocol that enables secure “https://” connections to websites. TLS 1.2 was defined 5 years ago in RFC 5246, and TLS 1.1 dates all the way back to RFC 4346 in 2006. Both of these versions are updates to the original standard that fix bugs and problems including vulnerability to cipher block chaining (CBC) such as the BEAST attack that made news in 2011. The authors also added newer cipher suites including a replacement for RC4, a popular cipher that has been shown to be susceptible to attack. In short, enabling TLS 1.2 is like a Windows software update – it fixes potential problems and makes your website more secure.

Encryption Still Works – It’s About How You Implement It
September 13, 2013 by Ben Wilson ECC Encryption Malware RSA SHA1 SHA2 SSL/TLS TLS 1.1 Vulnerability

The September 5th joint article by the New York Times and Guardian newspapers on NSA’s and GCHQ’s efforts to circumvent encryption implementation have left many people speculating on the security of the data they are transmitting over the Internet. Hopefully, this blog post will provide some guidance and help understand SSL in light of these recent articles. Importantly, the articles point out that the primary means of attacking SSL/TLS do not exploit a vulnerability in the protocol itself but instead aim to exploit poor implementations of the protocol, insecure servers, and weak cryptography.

What Is Certificate Transparency and How Does It Propose to Address Certificate Mis-Issuance?
September 9, 2013 by CA Security Council Attack Mis-issued OCSP Revocation SSL/TLS TSA

As originally architected by Netscape and others in the mid-1990s, the certificate issuance process envisioned that the CA would present the certificate and its contents to the named subject who would review and accept the certificate first. Then the CA would publish the certificate to a repository. That process would establish that the certificate’s subject was aware of certificate issuance. (Otherwise, an unscrupulous CA could sign a subscriber’s public key and create a certificate for the subscriber without its knowledge.) The repository was also an independent means of obtaining and verifying the public key prior to initiating secure, authenticated communication without having to obtain it solely from the server during session negotiation.