Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
On 17/11/15 14:12, Richard Wang wrote: I also found some mistakes for the list: 1. I see some client certificate in the report that it say the email as common name is wrong; 2. IP address is allowed by BR; Reserved IP Addresses are no longer permitted by the BRs. This is what Peter's "_special_ipv4" rule refers to, IIUC. Encoding an IP Address in a dNSName is not permitted by the BRs. This is what Peter's "_ipv4_not_allowed_here" rule refers to, IIUC. Public IP Addresses, encoded in the iPAddress field, are indeed permitted. I think Peter's report correctly avoided flagging these as "anomalies" though. 3. IDN is allowed, but also in the report IDN is allowed, as long as it's encoded correctly. See the previous comments about RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3. Regards, Richard -Original Message- From: dev-security-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+richard=wosign@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:32 PM To: Peter Gutmann; Peter Bowen ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates On 17/11/15 08:25, Peter Gutmann wrote: Peter Bowen writes: There are a couple of rules that may create false positives, so please don't assume every certificate on the sheet is problematic. That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of commercial CAs. Yet more evidence that, like the output from the EFF SSL Observatory, we need independent assessment of browser PKI rather than self-certification ("we define ourselves to be in full compliance with everything we need to be compliant with, as far as we can tell"). Peter. Peter (G), I fully agree that independent assessment is useful, but independent assessments need to be assessed too (preferably before the press start quoting soundbites! :-) ) Peter (B), Thanks for doing this report. There are definitely some interesting findings. However, I would like to discuss several classes of (what I think are) false positives that cover a significant number of the "anomalies" you've found: - RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. However, your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - AFAICT, this is permitted by both RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common practice to put the "xn--" ASCII string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in the Subject CN. - You wanted to check that "public CAs were following the CA/Browser Forum baseline requirements" when issuing certs. However, some of the certs in your report were issued before any of the browsers / audit regimes demanded that public CAs be compliant with the BRs. Furthermore, some of the certs in your report were issued before the BRs even existed. - You wanted to check "server auth certificates issued by public CAs". However, I see some Code Signing Certificates in your report. I'm pretty optimistic that all of the "anomalies" issued by Comodo's CA system (except for the 8 mentioned in our recent incident report) will be found to fall into these categories, although I haven't done an exhaustive analysis yet. If there are any other "anomalies", they're a bit lost in the noise at present! ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online Office Tel: +44.(0)1274.730505 Office Fax: +44.(0)1274.730909 www.comodo.com COMODO CA Limited, Registered in England No. 04058690 Registered Office: 3rd Floor, 26 Office Village, Exchange Quay, Trafford Road, Salford, Manchester M5 3EQ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail containing this attachment. Replies to this email may be monitored by COMODO for operational or business reasons. Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that e-mails are free from viruses, no liability can be accepted and the recipient is requested to use their own virus checking software. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
I also found some mistakes for the list: 1. I see some client certificate in the report that it say the email as common name is wrong; 2. IP address is allowed by BR; 3. IDN is allowed, but also in the report Regards, Richard -Original Message- From: dev-security-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+richard=wosign@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:32 PM To: Peter Gutmann; Peter Bowen ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates On 17/11/15 08:25, Peter Gutmann wrote: > Peter Bowen writes: > >> There are a couple of rules that may create false positives, so >> please don't assume every certificate on the sheet is problematic. > > That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of > commercial CAs. Yet more evidence that, like the output from the EFF > SSL Observatory, we need independent assessment of browser PKI rather > than self-certification ("we define ourselves to be in full compliance > with everything we need to be compliant with, as far as we can tell"). > > Peter. Peter (G), I fully agree that independent assessment is useful, but independent assessments need to be assessed too (preferably before the press start quoting soundbites! :-) ) Peter (B), Thanks for doing this report. There are definitely some interesting findings. However, I would like to discuss several classes of (what I think are) false positives that cover a significant number of the "anomalies" you've found: - RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. However, your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - AFAICT, this is permitted by both RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common practice to put the "xn--" ASCII string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in the Subject CN. - You wanted to check that "public CAs were following the CA/Browser Forum baseline requirements" when issuing certs. However, some of the certs in your report were issued before any of the browsers / audit regimes demanded that public CAs be compliant with the BRs. Furthermore, some of the certs in your report were issued before the BRs even existed. - You wanted to check "server auth certificates issued by public CAs". However, I see some Code Signing Certificates in your report. I'm pretty optimistic that all of the "anomalies" issued by Comodo's CA system (except for the 8 mentioned in our recent incident report) will be found to fall into these categories, although I haven't done an exhaustive analysis yet. If there are any other "anomalies", they're a bit lost in the noise at present! -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
While interesting, this report is probably going to be used for a lot of misleading statements. There's lots to consider in this: 1) Considering that the 3-year validity cap was a recent requirement, I'm surprised your search only resulted in 50,000 certificates with all of the 5-10 year certificates that were issued. 2) Remember that the BRs were not binding on any CA until adopted by a browser. Mozilla was the first CA to adopt on ~Feb 15 2013. Despite the effective date of the BRs in July 2012, it's hard to say those certificates were not compliant at the time of issuance when the policies weren't required. Although I understand that this data shows compliance of with the current version of the BRs, I won't be too surprised to see the info taken out of context and say the certs were not issued properly. 3) No EKU was a recent CAB Forum debate that didn't have a resolution. They aren't technically covered by the BRs according to some CAs as they aren't intended for use in authenticating servers accessible through the Internet. I tried to fix this issue in the CAB Forum but the discussions and proposed solutions didn't go anywhere because of the RFCs and various jurisdictional requirements. I'd still love to see this remedied in the BRs at some point. 4) Can you explain where in the BRs it prohibits Ipv4 name in the dnsName? It shouldn't go there but there is a good reason for including it in the dnsName. One of the browsers used to choke if you use ipAddress instead of dnsName. (http://www.michaelm.info/blog/?p=1281) I'm sure there are more concerns, but that's just a few of the initial thoughts I had when looking through the info. Jeremy -Original Message- From: dev-security-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+jeremy.rowley=digicert@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:40 AM To: Peter Bowen Cc: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org; Peter Gutmann Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates On 17/11/15 16:25, Peter Bowen wrote: >>- RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for >> dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. >> However, your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - >> AFAICT, this is permitted by both RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common >> practice to put the "xn--" ASCII string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in >> the Subject CN. > > I read 7.2 again and it clearly calls out as only applying to > domainComponent attributes. I'll rerun with allowance for hostnames > with u-labels in CNs. Thanks. >>- You wanted to check that "public CAs were following the >> CA/Browser Forum baseline requirements" when issuing certs. However, >> some of the certs in your report were issued before any of the >> browsers / audit regimes demanded that public CAs be compliant with >> the BRs. Furthermore, some of the certs in your report were issued before >> the BRs even existed. > > Yes, I should have been clearer here. The correct description should > be "determining if the names in unexpired certificates follow the > current BRs". As you point out, the BRs have changed over time and > didn't even exist when some of these were issued. That is why I > included the not before date; those examining the list should > determine their cutoff date. My concern is that many folks won't take the step of determining a sensible cutoff date. (Incidentally, this is why we deliberately only looked back at the past 1 year's worth of certs in the research we published last week). See how quickly even the esteemed Dr Gutmann seemed to be willing to take your report at face value - "That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of commercial CAs". ;-) >>- You wanted to check "server auth certificates issued by public CAs". >> However, I see some Code Signing Certificates in your report. > > I included all certificates that included the serverAuth EKU and all > those that had no EKU. Can you provide an example of a code signing > cert in the list so I can figure out why this test failed? CT knows about 2 certs issued by "COMODO RSA Code Signing CA", and your report flagged both of them, even though both certs contain the EKU extension with just the Code Signing OID. https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25=2035 >> I'm pretty optimistic that all of the "anomalies" issued by Comodo's >> CA system (except for the 8 mentioned in our recent incident report) >> will be found to fall into these categories, although I haven't done >> an exhaustive analysis yet. If there are any other "anomalies", >> they're a bit lost in the noise at present! > > I'll rerun the data in a few hours. I also will fix the encoding > issues; somehow the character encoding got messed up on import to > Google Sheets. Great. I tried importing the list into postgres but I couldn't persuade it to accept the invalid character
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
Encoding an IP Address in a dNSName is not permitted by the BRs. This is what Peter's "_ipv4_not_allowed_here" rule refers to, IIUC. [JR] I suppose that is true under 7.1.4.2.1 but how would you get the browsers to work back then? Chrome and IE did not process ipAddress properly. Jeremy > Regards, > > Richard > > -Original Message- > From: dev-security-policy > [mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+richard=wosign.com@lists.mozilla.o > rg] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:32 PM > To: Peter Gutmann; Peter Bowen > ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org > Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates > > On 17/11/15 08:25, Peter Gutmann wrote: >> Peter Bowen writes: >> >>> There are a couple of rules that may create false positives, so >>> please don't assume every certificate on the sheet is problematic. >> >> That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of >> commercial CAs. Yet more evidence that, like the output from the EFF >> SSL Observatory, we need independent assessment of browser PKI rather >> than self-certification ("we define ourselves to be in full >> compliance with everything we need to be compliant with, as far as we can >> tell"). >> >> Peter. > > Peter (G), > > I fully agree that independent assessment is useful, but independent > assessments need to be assessed too (preferably before the press start > quoting soundbites! :-) ) > > Peter (B), > > Thanks for doing this report. There are definitely some interesting findings. > However, I would like to discuss several classes of (what I think are) > false positives that cover a significant number of the "anomalies" you've > found: > > - RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for > dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. However, > your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - AFAICT, this > is permitted by both > RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common practice to put the "xn--" ASCII > string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in the Subject CN. > > - You wanted to check that "public CAs were following the > CA/Browser Forum baseline requirements" when issuing certs. However, > some of the certs in your report were issued before any of the > browsers / audit regimes demanded that public CAs be compliant with the BRs. > Furthermore, some of the certs in your report were issued before the > BRs even existed. > > - You wanted to check "server auth certificates issued by public CAs". > However, I see some Code Signing Certificates in your report. > > I'm pretty optimistic that all of the "anomalies" issued by Comodo's > CA system (except for the 8 mentioned in our recent incident report) > will be found to fall into these categories, although I haven't done > an exhaustive analysis yet. If there are any other "anomalies", > they're a bit lost in the noise at present! > > > > ___ > dev-security-policy mailing list > dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy > -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online Office Tel: +44.(0)1274.730505 Office Fax: +44.(0)1274.730909 www.comodo.com COMODO CA Limited, Registered in England No. 04058690 Registered Office: 3rd Floor, 26 Office Village, Exchange Quay, Trafford Road, Salford, Manchester M5 3EQ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail containing this attachment. Replies to this email may be monitored by COMODO for operational or business reasons. Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that e-mails are free from viruses, no liability can be accepted and the recipient is requested to use their own virus checking software. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
On 17/11/15 16:25, Peter Bowen wrote: - RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. However, your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - AFAICT, this is permitted by both RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common practice to put the "xn--" ASCII string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in the Subject CN. I read 7.2 again and it clearly calls out as only applying to domainComponent attributes. I'll rerun with allowance for hostnames with u-labels in CNs. Thanks. - You wanted to check that "public CAs were following the CA/Browser Forum baseline requirements" when issuing certs. However, some of the certs in your report were issued before any of the browsers / audit regimes demanded that public CAs be compliant with the BRs. Furthermore, some of the certs in your report were issued before the BRs even existed. Yes, I should have been clearer here. The correct description should be "determining if the names in unexpired certificates follow the current BRs". As you point out, the BRs have changed over time and didn't even exist when some of these were issued. That is why I included the not before date; those examining the list should determine their cutoff date. My concern is that many folks won't take the step of determining a sensible cutoff date. (Incidentally, this is why we deliberately only looked back at the past 1 year's worth of certs in the research we published last week). See how quickly even the esteemed Dr Gutmann seemed to be willing to take your report at face value - "That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of commercial CAs". ;-) - You wanted to check "server auth certificates issued by public CAs". However, I see some Code Signing Certificates in your report. I included all certificates that included the serverAuth EKU and all those that had no EKU. Can you provide an example of a code signing cert in the list so I can figure out why this test failed? CT knows about 2 certs issued by "COMODO RSA Code Signing CA", and your report flagged both of them, even though both certs contain the EKU extension with just the Code Signing OID. https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25=2035 I'm pretty optimistic that all of the "anomalies" issued by Comodo's CA system (except for the 8 mentioned in our recent incident report) will be found to fall into these categories, although I haven't done an exhaustive analysis yet. If there are any other "anomalies", they're a bit lost in the noise at present! I'll rerun the data in a few hours. I also will fix the encoding issues; somehow the character encoding got messed up on import to Google Sheets. Great. I tried importing the list into postgres but I couldn't persuade it to accept the invalid character encodings, so I gave up. I will also add a field column to help identify where in the certificates the issues are occurring. Hopefully these changes will help remove the noise. Definitely. Thanks! Thanks, Peter -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:40:28PM +, Rob Stradling wrote: > > Great. I tried importing the list into postgres but I couldn't persuade it > to accept the invalid character encodings, so I gave up. When importing data in my postgres database I leave the fields NULL in case I really can't do anything sensable with it currently. Kurt ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Rob Stradlingwrote: > On 17/11/15 17:54, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:40:28PM +, Rob Stradling wrote: >>> >>> >>> Great. I tried importing the list into postgres but I couldn't persuade >>> it >>> to accept the invalid character encodings, so I gave up. >> >> >> When importing data in my postgres database I leave the fields >> NULL in case I really can't do anything sensable with it >> currently. > > > I had the same trouble with Peter's updated report, but I've just figured > out how to resolve it. There are ~1000 instances of "\x" in the .tsv file I > exported. After replacing each one with "\\x", postgres happily imported > the data. I've uploaded the original CSV file to https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pzb-public-files/invalid-dnsname.csv I suspect it might work better than the CSV -> Google Sheets -> TSV path. Thanks, Peter ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
On 17/11/15 22:47, Peter Bowen wrote: I've uploaded the original CSV file to https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pzb-public-files/invalid-dnsname.csv I suspect it might work better than the CSV -> Google Sheets -> TSV path. Thanks, Peter Thanks Peter. -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
On 17/11/15 17:54, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:40:28PM +, Rob Stradling wrote: Great. I tried importing the list into postgres but I couldn't persuade it to accept the invalid character encodings, so I gave up. When importing data in my postgres database I leave the fields NULL in case I really can't do anything sensable with it currently. I had the same trouble with Peter's updated report, but I've just figured out how to resolve it. There are ~1000 instances of "\x" in the .tsv file I exported. After replacing each one with "\\x", postgres happily imported the data. -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Removed Certs Spreadsheet
All, We've added a new report, that is automatically generated from Salesforce: https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:RemovedCAcerts Please note the caveat: The Removed Certs Spreadsheet currently only lists the cert removals that have happened since September 2014, which is when we began using Salesforce to maintain the root store data. I have an action item to add the data for the certs that were removed before we started using Salesforce, so they will show up in the report. But I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. Kathleen ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
Based on writing the code to these checks, I think it would be good for the CAB Forum to consider the following clarifications/changes: 1) for dNSname type GeneralNames, make sure implementers are aware that the "preferred name synatx" in RFC1034 does not allow a trailing period on a Domain Name (example.com. is not valid) and are aware that leading and trailing whitespace is not allowed. 2) For commonName attributes in subject DNs, clarify that they can only contain: - IPv4 address in dotted-decimal notation (specified as IPv4address from section 3.2.2 of RFC 3986) - IPv6 address in coloned-hexadecimal notation (specified as IPv6address from section 3.2.2 of RFC 3986) - Fully Qualified Domain Name or Wildcard Domain Name in the "preferred name syntax" (specified by Section 3.5 of RFC1034 and as modified by Section 2.1 of RFC1123) - Fully Qualified Domain Name or Wildcard Domain Name in containing u-labels (as specified in RFC 5890) 3) Forbid commonName attributes in subject DNs from containing a Fully Qualified Domain Name or Wildcard Domain Name that contains both one or more u-labels and one or more a-labels (as specified in RFC 5890). 4) Forbid all IP addresses that are listed in http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml or in http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml except those with global = true. If the Forum decides to allow an exception to RFC 5280 to permit IP address strings in dNSName general names, then require the same format as allowed for common names. Thanks, Peter On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Jeremy Rowleywrote: > They were until Feb 2013 :) > > Sure - let's discuss these issues at the CAB Forum. Based on the spreadsheet, > I'm pretty sure lots of CAs would like to re-address the elimination of all > SANs except iPAddress and dNSANames. > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Stradling [mailto:rob.stradl...@comodo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:12 PM > To: Jeremy Rowley > Cc: Richard Wang; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org; Peter Bowen; > Peter Gutmann > Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates > > On 17/11/15 18:27, Jeremy Rowley wrote: >> Encoding an IP Address in a dNSName is not permitted by the BRs. This is >> what Peter's "_ipv4_not_allowed_here" rule refers to, IIUC. >> [JR] I suppose that is true under 7.1.4.2.1 but how would you get the >> browsers to work back then? Chrome and IE did not process ipAddress properly. > > Jeremy, I don't recall any clause in the BRs that permits CAs to ignore > requirements that they or their customers don't like. > > They are not Baseline Suggestions! ;-) > > If (whilst the BRs have been in force) there's been a perceived need to > encode IP addresses in dNSName fields, then don't you think that the correct > thing to do would've been to take the matter to CABForum and seek to update > the BRs so that this practice is permitted? > >> Jeremy >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: dev-security-policy >>> [mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+richard=wosign.com@lists.mozilla. >>> o >>> rg] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:32 PM >>> To: Peter Gutmann ; Peter Bowen >>> ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org >>> Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates >>> >>> On 17/11/15 08:25, Peter Gutmann wrote: Peter Bowen writes: > There are a couple of rules that may create false positives, so > please don't assume every certificate on the sheet is problematic. That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of commercial CAs. Yet more evidence that, like the output from the EFF SSL Observatory, we need independent assessment of browser PKI rather than self-certification ("we define ourselves to be in full compliance with everything we need to be compliant with, as far as we can tell"). Peter. >>> >>> Peter (G), >>> >>> I fully agree that independent assessment is useful, but independent >>> assessments need to be assessed too (preferably before the press >>> start quoting soundbites! :-) ) >>> >>> Peter (B), >>> >>> Thanks for doing this report. There are definitely some interesting >>> findings. >>> However, I would like to discuss several classes of (what I think >>> are) false positives that cover a significant number of the "anomalies" >>> you've found: >>> >>> - RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for >>> dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. >>> However, your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - >>> AFAICT, this is permitted by both >>> RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common practice to put the "xn--" ASCII >>> string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in the
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
I think we should update BR for IP address as dNSANames since the browser don't support IP address only, but many communication servers need the IP SSL certificate. We will test which browser don't support it. Best Regards, Richard -Original Message- From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.row...@digicert.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:17 AM To: Rob StradlingCc: Richard Wang ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org; Peter Bowen ; Peter Gutmann Subject: RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates They were until Feb 2013 :) Sure - let's discuss these issues at the CAB Forum. Based on the spreadsheet, I'm pretty sure lots of CAs would like to re-address the elimination of all SANs except iPAddress and dNSANames. -Original Message- From: Rob Stradling [mailto:rob.stradl...@comodo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:12 PM To: Jeremy Rowley Cc: Richard Wang; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org; Peter Bowen; Peter Gutmann Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates On 17/11/15 18:27, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > Encoding an IP Address in a dNSName is not permitted by the BRs. This is > what Peter's "_ipv4_not_allowed_here" rule refers to, IIUC. > [JR] I suppose that is true under 7.1.4.2.1 but how would you get the > browsers to work back then? Chrome and IE did not process ipAddress > properly. Jeremy, I don't recall any clause in the BRs that permits CAs to ignore requirements that they or their customers don't like. They are not Baseline Suggestions! ;-) If (whilst the BRs have been in force) there's been a perceived need to encode IP addresses in dNSName fields, then don't you think that the correct thing to do would've been to take the matter to CABForum and seek to update the BRs so that this practice is permitted? > Jeremy > >> Regards, >> >> Richard >> >> -Original Message- >> From: dev-security-policy >> [mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+richard=wosign.com@lists.mozilla. >> o >> rg] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling >> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:32 PM >> To: Peter Gutmann ; Peter Bowen >> ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org >> Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates >> >> On 17/11/15 08:25, Peter Gutmann wrote: >>> Peter Bowen writes: >>> There are a couple of rules that may create false positives, so please don't assume every certificate on the sheet is problematic. >>> >>> That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of >>> commercial CAs. Yet more evidence that, like the output from the >>> EFF SSL Observatory, we need independent assessment of browser PKI >>> rather than self-certification ("we define ourselves to be in full >>> compliance with everything we need to be compliant with, as far as we can >>> tell"). >>> >>> Peter. >> >> Peter (G), >> >> I fully agree that independent assessment is useful, but independent >> assessments need to be assessed too (preferably before the press >> start quoting soundbites! :-) ) >> >> Peter (B), >> >> Thanks for doing this report. There are definitely some interesting >> findings. >> However, I would like to discuss several classes of (what I think >> are) false positives that cover a significant number of the "anomalies" >> you've found: >> >> - RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for >> dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. >> However, your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - >> AFAICT, this is permitted by both >> RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common practice to put the "xn--" ASCII >> string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in the Subject CN. >> >> - You wanted to check that "public CAs were following the >> CA/Browser Forum baseline requirements" when issuing certs. However, >> some of the certs in your report were issued before any of the >> browsers / audit regimes demanded that public CAs be compliant with the >> BRs. >> Furthermore, some of the certs in your report were issued before the >> BRs even existed. >> >> - You wanted to check "server auth certificates issued by public CAs". >> However, I see some Code Signing Certificates in your report. >> >> I'm pretty optimistic that all of the "anomalies" issued by Comodo's >> CA system (except for the 8 mentioned in our recent incident report) >> will be found to fall into these categories, although I haven't done >> an exhaustive analysis yet. If there are any other "anomalies", >> they're a bit lost in the noise at present! -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
Richard, Please check the updated file I posted. My check to exclude certain certificates was broken in the first pass but the revised version properly excludes them. The content is still at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lJt-1tkgKcbw5woEr4-tcpqB-M-HKwjFNSdX2jla2EU/edit?usp=sharing, but has been updated. Thanks, Peter On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Richard Wangwrote: > I checked your list that the excel list number are: 6653 -- 6662, 29830 -- > 29841, 30434 -- 30437, they are all Client certificates without serverAuth > EKU, but listed, please check it, thanks. > > The attached certificate is No. 6653, please check its EKU, thanks. > > > Best Regards, > > Richard > > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzbo...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:33 AM > To: Richard Wang > Cc: Rob Stradling ; Peter Gutmann > ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org > Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Richard Wang wrote: >> I also found some mistakes for the list: >> 1. I see some client certificate in the report that it say the email >> as common name is wrong; > > I filtered for certificates that includes the serverAuth EKU or do not include > any EKUs. Can you provide an example of a clientAuth certificate that was > incorrectly included? > >> 2. IP address is allowed by BR; > > IP addresses are only allowed in the commonName or as IPAddress type in the > SAN extension. If the rule is _ipv4_not_allowed_here, then that means that an > IP address was included in a SAN as a DNS Name, which is disallowed. I will > also fix the IP check to differentiate between reserved IPs (as defined in the > BRs) and special purpose IPs (which are allowed if not reserved). The BRs do > not clearly state that 192.168.0.0/24, 172.16.0.0/12, and other special > purpose IPs are disallowed. > >> 3. IDN is allowed, but also in the report > > See my note to Rob; I'm fixing that. I misread RFC 5280 section 7.2. > > Thanks, > Peter > > ___ > dev-security-policy mailing list > dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy > ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
I checked your list that the excel list number are: 6653 -- 6662, 29830 -- 29841, 30434 -- 30437, they are all Client certificates without serverAuth EKU, but listed, please check it, thanks. The attached certificate is No. 6653, please check its EKU, thanks. Best Regards, Richard -Original Message- From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzbo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:33 AM To: Richard WangCc: Rob Stradling ; Peter Gutmann ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Richard Wang wrote: > I also found some mistakes for the list: > 1. I see some client certificate in the report that it say the email > as common name is wrong; I filtered for certificates that includes the serverAuth EKU or do not include any EKUs. Can you provide an example of a clientAuth certificate that was incorrectly included? > 2. IP address is allowed by BR; IP addresses are only allowed in the commonName or as IPAddress type in the SAN extension. If the rule is _ipv4_not_allowed_here, then that means that an IP address was included in a SAN as a DNS Name, which is disallowed. I will also fix the IP check to differentiate between reserved IPs (as defined in the BRs) and special purpose IPs (which are allowed if not reserved). The BRs do not clearly state that 192.168.0.0/24, 172.16.0.0/12, and other special purpose IPs are disallowed. > 3. IDN is allowed, but also in the report See my note to Rob; I'm fixing that. I misread RFC 5280 section 7.2. Thanks, Peter smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
Yes, all Client certificates are removed, thanks. So WoSign only left IP address issue that we added both IP address and DNS Name since some browser have warning for IP address only in SAN. Best Regards, Richard -Original Message- From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzbo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 10:28 AM To: Richard WangCc: Rob Stradling ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org; Peter Gutmann Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates Richard, Please check the updated file I posted. My check to exclude certain certificates was broken in the first pass but the revised version properly excludes them. The content is still at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lJt-1tkgKcbw5woEr4-tcpqB-M-HKwjFNSdX2jla2EU/edit?usp=sharing, but has been updated. Thanks, Peter On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Richard Wang wrote: > I checked your list that the excel list number are: 6653 -- 6662, > 29830 -- 29841, 30434 -- 30437, they are all Client certificates > without serverAuth EKU, but listed, please check it, thanks. > > The attached certificate is No. 6653, please check its EKU, thanks. > > > Best Regards, > > Richard > > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Bowen [mailto:pzbo...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:33 AM > To: Richard Wang > Cc: Rob Stradling ; Peter Gutmann > ; > mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org > Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Richard Wang wrote: >> I also found some mistakes for the list: >> 1. I see some client certificate in the report that it say the email >> as common name is wrong; > > I filtered for certificates that includes the serverAuth EKU or do not > include any EKUs. Can you provide an example of a clientAuth > certificate that was incorrectly included? > >> 2. IP address is allowed by BR; > > IP addresses are only allowed in the commonName or as IPAddress type > in the SAN extension. If the rule is _ipv4_not_allowed_here, then > that means that an IP address was included in a SAN as a DNS Name, > which is disallowed. I will also fix the IP check to differentiate > between reserved IPs (as defined in the > BRs) and special purpose IPs (which are allowed if not reserved). The > BRs do not clearly state that 192.168.0.0/24, 172.16.0.0/12, and other > special purpose IPs are disallowed. > >> 3. IDN is allowed, but also in the report > > See my note to Rob; I'm fixing that. I misread RFC 5280 section 7.2. > > Thanks, > Peter > > ___ > dev-security-policy mailing list > dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
Peter Bowenwrites: >There are a couple of rules that may create false positives, so please don't >assume every certificate on the sheet is problematic. That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of commercial CAs. Yet more evidence that, like the output from the EFF SSL Observatory, we need independent assessment of browser PKI rather than self-certification ("we define ourselves to be in full compliance with everything we need to be compliant with, as far as we can tell"). Peter. ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
RE: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates
They were until Feb 2013 :) Sure - let's discuss these issues at the CAB Forum. Based on the spreadsheet, I'm pretty sure lots of CAs would like to re-address the elimination of all SANs except iPAddress and dNSANames. -Original Message- From: Rob Stradling [mailto:rob.stradl...@comodo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:12 PM To: Jeremy Rowley Cc: Richard Wang; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org; Peter Bowen; Peter Gutmann Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates On 17/11/15 18:27, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > Encoding an IP Address in a dNSName is not permitted by the BRs. This is > what Peter's "_ipv4_not_allowed_here" rule refers to, IIUC. > [JR] I suppose that is true under 7.1.4.2.1 but how would you get the > browsers to work back then? Chrome and IE did not process ipAddress properly. Jeremy, I don't recall any clause in the BRs that permits CAs to ignore requirements that they or their customers don't like. They are not Baseline Suggestions! ;-) If (whilst the BRs have been in force) there's been a perceived need to encode IP addresses in dNSName fields, then don't you think that the correct thing to do would've been to take the matter to CABForum and seek to update the BRs so that this practice is permitted? > Jeremy > >> Regards, >> >> Richard >> >> -Original Message- >> From: dev-security-policy >> [mailto:dev-security-policy-bounces+richard=wosign.com@lists.mozilla. >> o >> rg] On Behalf Of Rob Stradling >> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:32 PM >> To: Peter Gutmann; Peter Bowen >> ; mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org >> Subject: Re: [FORGED] Name issues in public certificates >> >> On 17/11/15 08:25, Peter Gutmann wrote: >>> Peter Bowen writes: >>> There are a couple of rules that may create false positives, so please don't assume every certificate on the sheet is problematic. >>> >>> That's still pretty scary, nearly 50,000 names from a who's-who of >>> commercial CAs. Yet more evidence that, like the output from the >>> EFF SSL Observatory, we need independent assessment of browser PKI >>> rather than self-certification ("we define ourselves to be in full >>> compliance with everything we need to be compliant with, as far as we can >>> tell"). >>> >>> Peter. >> >> Peter (G), >> >> I fully agree that independent assessment is useful, but independent >> assessments need to be assessed too (preferably before the press >> start quoting soundbites! :-) ) >> >> Peter (B), >> >> Thanks for doing this report. There are definitely some interesting >> findings. >> However, I would like to discuss several classes of (what I think >> are) false positives that cover a significant number of the "anomalies" >> you've found: >> >> - RFC5280 sections 7.2 and 7.3 do indeed talk about the need for >> dNSNames, domainComponents, etc, to only contain ASCII data. >> However, your report also flags Subject CNs with non-ASCII data - >> AFAICT, this is permitted by both >> RFC5280 and the BRs. It is common practice to put the "xn--" ASCII >> string in a dNSName and the UTF-8 string in the Subject CN. >> >> - You wanted to check that "public CAs were following the >> CA/Browser Forum baseline requirements" when issuing certs. However, >> some of the certs in your report were issued before any of the >> browsers / audit regimes demanded that public CAs be compliant with the BRs. >> Furthermore, some of the certs in your report were issued before the >> BRs even existed. >> >> - You wanted to check "server auth certificates issued by public CAs". >> However, I see some Code Signing Certificates in your report. >> >> I'm pretty optimistic that all of the "anomalies" issued by Comodo's >> CA system (except for the 8 mentioned in our recent incident report) >> will be found to fall into these categories, although I haven't done >> an exhaustive analysis yet. If there are any other "anomalies", >> they're a bit lost in the noise at present! -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online ___ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy