I trust a few people and organisations – my parents, some close friends and a handful of organisations such as EFF. Your personal circle of trust is probably not hugely dissimilar.
I wonder, have you heard of DigiNotar or Comodo before? Do you realise that you implicitly trust them and hundreds of other organisations every time you use your Internet web browser?
What are you trusting these organisations to do? You trust them to vouch for secure web sites that you visit. These 650 ‘trusted’ organisations are SSL Certificate Authorities (or CAs) and they are responsible for confirming that a given domain name and web site belongs to the legal entity named in the web server SSL certificate.
As a result of security weaknesses, the integrity of the Comodo and DigiNotar Certificate Authorities was breached in hacks which made news all around the world. Even the non-tech press realised the significance of these attacks.
The hacker responsible was able to generate a number of bogus web server SSL certificates, which were used by persons unknown to transparently intercept and spy on communications with popular web services such as Gmail, Skype and Facebook.
This led me to question the role of certificate authorities and how fit for purpose the SSL protocol is in the modern Internet world of web applications.
The original SSL protocol specification was drafted in 1994 by Netscape engineer Kipp Hickman. In the section describing ‘Man In The Middle’ attacks the author simply says:
During the security connection handshake the server is required to provide a certificate that is signed by a certificate authority.
Any good secure protocol requires three elements: secrecy, integrity and authenticity. Apparently Hickman himself has admitted that authenticity was “thrown in at the end” of the SSL protocol specification. This weakness of SSL is a fundamental and critical flaw. This is the element where commercial interests, criminality and good old fashioned human error have all come into play.
In the early days of SSL, VeriSign was the lone certificate authority entrusted to verify that a web server belonged to a particular domain name and legal entity. The problem with a monopoly such as this is that without competition the CA can set an unreasonably high price for the service they provide. To stimulate competition more and more CAs were added to the trusted root certificate lists and over time we now find ourselves with literally hundreds of ‘trusted’ CAs.
So what makes these businesses trusted? Judging by some of the CAs that have bought their way onto the list – not a lot!
StartCom CA for example will issue free SSL certificates with only cursory validation. In their own words:
Class 1 Certificates provide modest assurances that the email originated from a sender with the specified email address or that the domain address belongs to the respective server address. These certificates provide no proof of the identity of the subscriber or of the organization.
Most Internet users naively assume that seeing https and the padlock icon is a guarantee that the identity of the web site owner has been verified and the web site is secure. Actually both assumptions are no longer true.
It is no longer necessary to go through strict vetting procedures to obtain a valid and trusted SSL certificate. With fake certificates having already been created via compromised CAs there is also no guarantee that your communications are safe from a man-in-the-middle attack.
Former Netscape Chief Scientist Dr Taher Elgamal is credited as being one of the co-authors of the original SSL specification. He too has voiced his concerns that a copycat attack against CAs could result in more rogue SSL certificates:
It could happen again. There’s no back-up plan, which is generally a bad security model. The problem of what to do when certificate issuers were compromised never came up when the original work was being done on SSL/TLS. Nobody asked the question of what to do if a certificate authority turns out to be bad. The problem was not so much with the technology as it was with the firms issuing the certificates.
There’s way too many of them.
But what of the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP), which was specifically designed to protect us from rogue SSL certificates? Well that is unfortunately flawed too and can be bypassed using a simple protocol trick.
So are there any workable alternatives to SSL?
Moxie Marlinspike (the security researcher who found the OCSP flaw referenced above) has been giving it some serious thought. He was inspired by a concept called Perspectives which he has improved on and developed into Convergence – “An agile, distributed, and secure strategy for replacing Certificate Authorities“.
Convergence is still in its infancy and it’s not perfect, but with SSL now coming of age it could be a critical enabler for the future of secure communications.
I’m glad that someone who understands the weaknesses of SSL has proposed an alternative to CAs. Let’s hope that this effort gains some momentum in the industry and together we properly solve the issue of web server authenticity.