> Should it instead say, "The recommended way to provide this is to ensure each 
> certificate is logged to CT and then list the crt.sh fingerprint URL for each 
> certificate in the format 'https://crt.sh/?q=[sha256 hash]', ...."? Should 
> the SHA1 fingerprint also be allowed?

Hi Ben.  This post is really just a comment about crt.sh usage rather than a 
substantive response to your question.

For a general-purpose 'q=' search, crt.sh uses the following heuristic approach 
to determine the type of the search term:
  - if the search term can be parsed as a 64-bit integer, it performs an 'id=' 
search for a crt.sh ID; otherwise...
  - if the search term can be parsed as a "hex string" that represents 
precisely 20 bytes, it performs a 'sha1=' search for a SHA-1 certificate 
fingerprint; otherwise...
  - if the search term can be parsed as a "hex string" that represents 
precisely 32 bytes, it performs a 'sha256=' search for a SHA-256 certificate 
fingerprint; otherwise...
  - it performs an 'identity=' search.

So 'https://crt.sh/?q=[sha256 hash]' will indeed find a (pre)certificate whose 
SHA-256 fingerprint matches '[sha256 hash]'; however, when a specific type of 
search term is intended, I encourage folks to quote crt.sh URLs that use the 
most specific search type that is applicable.  In this case, what I mean is 
that I would encourage the use of 'https://crt.sh/?sha256=[sha256 hash]' URLs 
instead of 'https://crt.sh/?q=[sha256 hash]'.

I'm not bothered about the extra CPU cycles that it takes for crt.sh to execute 
the heuristic approach described above.  Rather, ISTM that a "?sha256=" URL is 
more self-descriptive than a "?q=" URL, and clarity is important.

________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on 
behalf of Ben Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: 17 November 2021 22:46
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Use of crt.sh ID in Incident Reports


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.


All,

In an incident report recently, there was discussion about the right way to 
report the certificates involved in the incident. See 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1736064<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.mozilla.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D1736064&data=04%7C01%7Crob%40sectigo.com%7Ca0ec7c114f9e448f306308d9aa1c28c9%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637727860185254459%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=C7oayhfrH%2B9P5A0V3Y47e4HevY8FjMVyCOoaxxA7UeA%3D&reserved=0>

In section 5 of 
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Responding_To_An_Incident#Incident_Report<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.mozilla.org%2FCA%2FResponding_To_An_Incident%23Incident_Report&data=04%7C01%7Crob%40sectigo.com%7Ca0ec7c114f9e448f306308d9aa1c28c9%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637727860185264411%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=fcagnhsu5ARyhauQaptG%2BGcCDQUa9VN1cPN32ZKs4%2B0%3D&reserved=0>,
 it currently says, "5. In a case involving TLS server certificates, the 
complete certificate data for the problematic certificates. The recommended way 
to provide this is to ensure each certificate is logged to CT and then list the 
fingerprints or crt.sh IDs, either in the report or as an attached spreadsheet, 
with one list per distinct problem."

We are thinking of removing the reference to the "crt.sh ID" and clarifying the 
instructions on providing the certificate fingerprints. Instead of the crt.sh 
database ID, for instance, crt.sh currently supports a lookup based on the 
SHA256 hash 
(https://crt.sh/?q=[sha256<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrt.sh%2F%3Fq%3D%5Bsha256&data=04%7C01%7Crob%40sectigo.com%7Ca0ec7c114f9e448f306308d9aa1c28c9%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637727860185264411%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ZedHWqgwh5ov8wi3QjTw4YOjxlw8xXZ6cHqo%2FTdQP6M%3D&reserved=0>
 hash]).

Should it instead say, "The recommended way to provide this is to ensure each 
certificate is logged to CT and then list the crt.sh fingerprint URL for each 
certificate in the format 
'https://crt.sh/?q=[sha256<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcrt.sh%2F%3Fq%3D%5Bsha256&data=04%7C01%7Crob%40sectigo.com%7Ca0ec7c114f9e448f306308d9aa1c28c9%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637727860185274367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=rgeWfZVSlXzfkYeNBLcMg9vnoRVGGXiew9SWLbjjZcE%3D&reserved=0>
 hash]', ...."? Should the SHA1 fingerprint also be allowed?

What is the preferred method, and which other alternatives should be allowed 
for unambiguously reporting / locating the certificates or their "complete 
certificate data"?

Thanks,

Ben



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CA%2B1gtaY5t3yMs2bVoGy-F%3D2_Tph__G%2BfLARXD3TxBZ7MJK97sw%40mail.gmail.com<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fa%2Fmozilla.org%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fdev-security-policy%2FCA%252B1gtaY5t3yMs2bVoGy-F%253D2_Tph__G%252BfLARXD3TxBZ7MJK97sw%2540mail.gmail.com%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dfooter&data=04%7C01%7Crob%40sectigo.com%7Ca0ec7c114f9e448f306308d9aa1c28c9%7C0e9c48946caa465d96604b6968b49fb7%7C0%7C0%7C637727860185274367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=EsiLZ4nMkthhiCzRc7IaP9wdQe%2FVB%2F%2BkRekYmX0DgCI%3D&reserved=0>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/MW4PR17MB4729197679DA013A8677EBEDAA9B9%40MW4PR17MB4729.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.

Reply via email to