PKI Consortium blog

Why You Should Get Familiar With TLS If You Accept Credit Cards
April 28, 2015 by Billy VanCannon Encryption PDF SSL/TLS Vulnerability

The group that manages the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard quietly announced in February that an imminent update was coming to its payment card and application requirements related to the use of the SSL encryption protocol. Since then, there has been growing concern among merchants about what the changes mean to them.

The confusion among retailers generally can be boiled down to two questions:

1. What will the new updates require me to do?
2. What happens to my TSL/SSL certificates?

First let’s explain what’s going on: On Feb. 13, the PCI Security Standards Council informed its assessor community that SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) – a protocol designed to ensure that data provided between a web server and a web browser, such as credit card information, remains secure – is no longer an acceptable way to provide “strong cryptography.” This is due to a number of known fundamental vulnerabilities – some of which, such as Heartbleed, we have documented here, here and here – that essentially make SSL, as an encryption mechanism, obsolete.

HTTP/2 Is Speedy and Secure
April 20, 2015 by Wayne Thayer Announcement Chrome Firefox Forward Secrecy Google HSTS IETF Microsoft Mozilla SSL/TLS Vulnerability

Since we last wrote about SSL/TLS performance, there has been a lot of activity in the IETF HTTP Working Group, resulting in the February announcement that the next version of HTTP has been approved. This is big news because it means that major SSL/TLS performance improvements are on the way.

Background

When your browser connects to a website today, it most likely uses the HTTP/1.1 protocol that was defined in 1999 in RFC 2616. Over the past 15 years, HTTP/1.1 has served us well and many tweaks have been discovered to make the most of it. However, in that time the web has transformed into a platform for interactive content and applications. Today, browsers load much more data from many more sources to build the typical web page.

Is Your SSL Server Vulnerable to a FREAK Attack?
March 11, 2015 by Bruce Morton (Entrust) Android Attack Encryption Forward Secrecy Microsoft MITM RSA SSL/TLS Vulnerability

FREAK is a new man-in-the-middle (MITM) vulnerability discovered by a group of cryptographers at INRIA, Microsoft Research and IMDEA. FREAK stands for “Factoring RSA-EXPORT Keys.”

The vulnerability dates back to the 1990s, when the US government banned selling crypto software overseas, unless it used export cipher suites which involved encryption keys no longer than 512-bits.

The issue is there are still some clients who let crypto be degraded from “strong RSA” to “export grade RSA”. These clients use OpenSSL, Apple’s Secure Transport and Windows Secure Channel. As such, users of Android mobiles, Apple Macs, iPhones and iPads, and Windows platforms will be impacted.

Lenovo Enables Man-in-the-Middle Attacks Via Superfish Adware
February 20, 2015 by Doug Beattie (GlobalSign) Attack Code Signing Firefox Malware Microsoft MITM Mixed Content SSL/TLS Vulnerability

Lenovo is selling computers that contain the Superfish application which “supplements” the user’s SSL sessions to enable their adware application to deliver content transparently; however, due to poor security design this leaves users vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.

How it was supposed to work

Superfish uses the program “Visual Discovery” to process images in browser content and then displays ads for similar goods and services. This sounds like any other adware application, but in order to maintain SSL sessions and not alert users with security warnings, Superfish is serving up these images over https. They were able to do this by creating SSL certificates on the fly that imitate the certificates on the “real” websites they have intercepted and using them in a local SSL proxy to deliver content from the Visual Discovery server over the same apparent domain, without clearly revealing what they have done.  This is a classic “man in the middle” or MITM process.

SSL Certificate Validity Periods Limited to 39 Months Starting in April
February 19, 2015 by Jeremy Rowley CA/Browser Forum ETSI Policy SSL/TLS Vulnerability WebTrust

In accordance with the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements, effective April 1, 2015, Certificate Authorities (CAs) will no longer be able to issue SSL Certificates with a validity period longer than 39 months.

Shortening the validity period to 39 months is the result of much consideration within the CA/Browser Forum to arrive at a duration that allows optimal usability while maintaining the tightest network security. A shortened validity period will significantly improve Internet security by requiring administrators to renew and verify their certificates more often. It will also make it easier for users to keep up-to-date on new advances in security and remain aware of their control over private keys.

2015 – Looking Back, Moving Forward
January 6, 2015 by Bruce Morton (Entrust) Apple Attack CA/Browser Forum CAA Chrome Code Signing EV Firefox Forward Secrecy Google IETF Malware Microsoft MITM Mozilla OpenSSL PKI Policy RSA SHA1 SSL 3.0 SSL/TLS TLS 1.0 TLS 1.2 TLS 1.3 Vulnerability

Looking Back at 2014

End of 1024-Bit Security

In 2014, the SSL industry moved to issuing a minimum security of 2048-bit RSA certificates. Keys smaller than 2048 are no longer allowed in server certificates. In addition, Microsoft and Mozilla started to remove 1024-bit roots from their certificate stores. Hopefully, the key size change will support users through to 2030.

POODLE for TLS
December 16, 2014 by Bruce Morton (Entrust) Attack SSL 3.0 SSL/TLS Vulnerability

The POODLE attack on SSL 3.0 has now been extended to some implementations of TLS. POODLE for TLS can be tracked through CVE-2014-8730.

POODLE is not a flaw with the certificate authority (CA), SSL certificates or certificate management system. POODLE is a TLS implementation bug.

Adam Langley states that “TLS’s padding is a subset of SSLv3’s padding so, technically, you could use an SSLv3 decoding function with TLS and it would still work fine. It wouldn’t check the padding bytes but that wouldn’t cause any problems in normal operation. However, if an SSLv3 decoding function was used with TLS, then the POODLE attack would work, even against TLS connections.”

’Tis the Season for Online Safety
November 30, 2014 by CA Security Council SSL/TLS Vulnerability

The holidays are approaching as quickly as a sleigh pulled by magic reindeer, and every year it seems like the shopping season starts earlier and earlier. In many places, Christmas decorations are now put up before Halloween, ensuring a long and profitable season for merchants. And while most of us have had the experience of opening a disappointing gift on Christmas morning, one thing that can ruin your holiday faster than a homemade sweater is finding out that someone has obtained your credit card number, or compromised your account on your favorite shopping website.

A Follow-up on POODLE and SSL 3.0
November 21, 2014 by Bruce Morton (Entrust) Attack Encryption Google IETF Mozilla OpenSSL SSL 3.0 SSL/TLS TLS 1.0 TLS 1.1 TLS 1.3 Vulnerability

In October 2014, Google announced POODLE, an SSL 3.0 protocol attack.

To bring you up to speed, the SSL/TLS protocol is the most important and popular security protocol on the Internet. The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol was developed by Netscape. They quickly moved from SSL 1.0 to 2.0 and finalized with SSL 3.0 in 1996.

This protocol was then picked up by the IETF, who released it under the name of Transport Layer Security (TLS). The IETF released TLS 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. They are currently working on TLS 1.3.

Code Signing Baseline Requirements
October 20, 2014 by Jeremy Rowley CA/Browser Forum CASC Code Signing Malware Microsoft Vulnerability

Code signing certificates are used to sign software objects to authenticate that they originated from a verified source, allowing developers to avoid warnings commonly displayed by application software vendors such as Microsoft operating systems and Java. A fraudulent code signing certificate can wreak havoc on networks, spreading malware and adware without restraint. Certificate Authorities are tasked with ensuring that code signing applicants are legitimate entities and provide accountability for use of the certificate.