On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:27:27 AM UTC+11, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> Oh, come on, if that's her job title, that's her job title, and at any
> CA, that is actually an important job that /someone/ should have.

I meant the content of her reply, not her job title.

> Unfortunately, when initially establishing encryption certificates, one
> generally has to start from some kind of unencrypted connection, such
> as an unencrypted phone call or an unencrypted e-mail, or an
> unencrypted paper mail.

Not the private key though. And besides, it doesn't matter if your CSR and 
Certificate are duplicated, they're not a secret only the private key is.

> But a password or random secret string in a URL /is/ authentication.
> And in an e-mail, it is behind whatever authentication you (not
> Symantec) have set up for that e-mail (and Symantec obviously didn't
> know about the Yahoo undisclosed breach at the time).

I don't know how to say this any other way - but that's unbelievably sloppy. 
That's like saying you'll let your customers email their credit card numbers to 
you. You don't put anything that sensitive into an email address, ever. Any 
time I get a password emailed to me I change it immediately.

Besides this is passing the blame to the customers. And there is a big 
difference of how informed each party was. Symantec knew about this exploit, 
customers didn't. They knew to take extra precautions, customers didn't have 
that knowledge.

> They need to only assume that whatever e-mail account people provide
> for signup is secure enough for the people choosing what e-mail to
> provide /and only on the day or week where they provide that e-mail
> address/.

So since December 2016 they banned all Yahoo! emails, right?

> But was he, or did you simply exaggerate something in your blog?

He says it on his facebook post: "for some third party vendors, depending on 
the type of certificate, and how the certificate was issued, you could also 
retrieve private keys."

> The Google issue is *microscopic* except Google is using it as a lame
> excuse to threaten Symantec big time.

I believe the 30,000 number they talked about relates to the same security 
issue that Chris Byrne identified. If it didn't then here's my question: how 
many certificates were affected by the Chris Byrne issue?

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:11:00 AM UTC+11, tarah.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> So sorry, but I don't know what you're referring to. Did you tweet me a link 
> to a blog post? Blame Jack if so; all of us are dealing with hugely 
> problematic threading today due to the Twitter @ changes. If you reply here 
> with what you are talking about, I can take a look, though unfortunately I 
> might not be able to get to it today. I always like hearing opposing 
> viewpoints.

Sure, it's no secret: https://blog.aractus.com/the-symantec-ssl-shitstorm/

That page I'm pretty sure wasn't even indexed in google when I posted. Even it 
it was, my viewership is only small. I was here reading these threads, and 
gathering more information so that I can fix up all the errors I've made - 
that's how we all learn, by making mistakes and fixing them. Anyway, I only 
used primary sourced material (ie, the google groups discussions, Chris's 
facebook post, and the Symantec website), I haven't read anything on Twitter.

Again, I obviously can't speak for others, but any confusion over the facts 
here could have been easily avoided had Symantec made a full public statement 
about the Chris Byrne vulnerability the moment that it no longer posed a threat 
to customers.

Where I will agree with you is that from the description, it would have 
involved a fairly sophisticated attack to steal private keys from the 
"incompetent resellers", and that they were equally culpable.
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to