Re: Site Certificates in SeaMonkey

2008-11-06 Thread Nelson Bolyard
David E. Ross wrote, On 2008-11-05 16:10: I'm having a problem with a credit union's Web site (which prompted my other message IP Address Question in mozilla.support.seamonkey). Sometimes when I access the site's home page -- which is https -- everything is okay; a secure session is

Client authentication cores the VM if the client does not send any certificates

2008-11-06 Thread Dean
Has anybody else seen or be able to reproduce this. Using JSS, if you create an SSLServerSocket with need or want client auth set to true, and you attempt a handshake with a client that does not send a client certificate, JSS throws some native exception that brings down the VM. Thread: main

Re: Help Signature Verification Error: !

2008-11-06 Thread Kai Engert
Nelson B Bolyard wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but, what is CentOS ? CentOS is the name of a Linux distribution. Kai smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Bernie Sumption
Graham, Nelson, Eddy, you all make good points. I'll take your word for it that it's impossible to detect MITM attacks with 100% reliability, as I said I'm not a security expert. How about an MITM detection service that gives no false positives, but might give false negatives? If you positively

RE: Help Signature Verification Error: !

2008-11-06 Thread David Stutzman
Specifically it's built from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) sources with the Red Hat proprietary pieces removed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kai Engert Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:26 AM To: mozilla's crypto code discussion

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Nelson B Bolyard
Bernie Sumption wrote, On 2008-11-06 03:57: Graham, Nelson, Eddy, you all make good points. I'll take your word for it that it's impossible to detect MITM attacks with 100% reliability, as I said I'm not a security expert. How about an MITM detection service that gives no false positives,

Re: Client authentication cores the VM if the client does not send any certificates

2008-11-06 Thread Nelson B Bolyard
Dean wrote, On 2008-11-06 04:47 PST: I entered a defect with test case for this a while back and have not seen any comments on it. Yeah, 4 days ago. Be patient. Thanks. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458251 /Nelson ___

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Nelson B Bolyard
What curious things do you notice about these certs? Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 1224169969 (0x48f759f1) Signature Algorithm: PKCS #1 MD5 With RSA Encryption Issuer: CN=unaportal.una.edu,O=University of North Alabama Validity:

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Ian G
Nelson B Bolyard wrote: What curious things do you notice about these certs? Only one key? All have same Issuer + Subject? iang ___ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Kyle Hamilton
Aside from the fact that they all claim to be issued by themselves, but the key modulus is the same across all of them? Perhaps the fact that they're all version 3 certificates that don't show any version 3 extensions, such as keyUsage and extendedKeyUsage? Should there be a check to make sure

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Kyle Hamilton
...and they're all using MD5? -Kyle H On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Ian G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nelson B Bolyard wrote: What curious things do you notice about these certs? Only one key? All have same Issuer + Subject? iang ___

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
Kyle, Kyle Hamilton wrote: Should there be a check to make sure that disparate sites aren't using the same public key modulus/exponent? That would be fairly hard to implement reliably. Currently, we don't persist end-entity certs of web sites in general in PSM. Even if we did, what is the

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Nelson B Bolyard
Ian G wrote, On 2008-11-06 12:48: Nelson B Bolyard wrote: What curious things do you notice about these certs? Only one key? Yup. That's the biggie. It allows the MITM to get by with just a single private key. All have same Issuer + Subject? Yeah, all self signed. All DNs consist of

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Ian G
Nelson B Bolyard wrote: Ian G wrote, On 2008-11-06 12:48: Nelson B Bolyard wrote: What curious things do you notice about these certs? Only one key? Yup. That's the biggie. It allows the MITM to get by with just a single private key. OK. We can of course all imagine ways to exploit

Re: MITM in the wild

2008-11-06 Thread Julien R Pierre - Sun Microsystems
Kyle, Kyle Hamilton wrote: So, essentially, what you're saying is that it was a targeted attack against a user, instead of an attack targeted against a server? Apparently, keeping track of keys in certificates placed individually into NSS might be a good idea regardless. The attacker

PKCS#11 versions supported by Firefox/NSS

2008-11-06 Thread Martin Paljak
Hi! Anyone knows the implemented PKCS#11 versions in NSS versions used in Firefox 2.x and 3.x? Is it PKCS#11 v2.11 or 2.20 ? Thanks, -- Martin Paljak http://martin.paljak.pri.ee +372.515.6495 ___ dev-tech-crypto mailing list