On Sat, Nov 7, 2026 at 9:11 AM Elven Inquisition
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Given how trivial it is to crack eMudhra's certs[1], isn't HTTPS useless as a
> mitigation[2] for CVE-2026-109518[3] wrt new installations?

[...]

> [1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449#c5
> [2]: https://ubuntu.com/blog/apt-vulnerability-fixes-available
> [3]: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-109518
> [4]: https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/trixie/

While not obvious, the problem is in the signing process and
signatures of the CRLs.  The single byte private exponents are
actually indexes into a HSM slot, and the "keys" used to sign CRLs.
The CRL signing process broke, and the CRLs validation subsequently
failed.  That's why the discussion turned to CRLs in Comment 5,
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449#c5>.

The discussion of HSM slots and the CRL failures happened on the
Mozilla dev mailing list at "Compromised eMudhra Intermediate
Certificates", 
<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-policy/c/0R3XLJL6FuE/m/JESKy8XoAgAJ>.
The discussion of the HSM slots and CRLs starts to happen around 15
posts in.  Start reading on leeyc0's post on Oct 21, 2026,
<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-policy/c/0R3XLJL6FuE/m/XhSrOzHyAgAJ>.

Also see Corey Bonnell's post on Oct 21, 2026,
<https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-policy/c/0R3XLJL6FuE/m/QyuemwX9AgAJ>:

    The incident report highlights that no end-entity certificates (and
    therefore no OCSP responses) were signed using these CAs. The only
    artifacts signed were CRLs, and those failed signature validation using
    the CA certificates. That suggests the signing flow used the real HSM
    key correctly, and the mistake was limited to CSR generation.

So the keys that could be used to MitM traffic were still protected in
the HSM and working properly.  It was the CRL signing process that
broke and resulted in weak keys.  It is not clear (to me) how much
damage an attacker could do since the CRL signatures do not verify.  I
do not think an attacker can forge a CRL.  If a relying party does not
perform signature checks, then it does not matter whether a strong key
or weak key was used in the process.

Jeff

Reply via email to