Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Security IT

Hackers May Have Nabbed Over 200 SSL Certificates 141

CWmike writes "Hackers may have obtained more than 200 digital certificates from a Dutch company after breaking into its network, including ones for Mozilla, Yahoo and the Tor project — a considerably higher number than DigiNotar has acknowledged earlier this week when it said 'several dozen' certificates had been acquired by attackers. Among the certificates acquired by the attackers in a mid-July hack of DigiNotar, Van de Looy's source said, were ones valid for, and, a system that lets people connect to the Web anonymously. Mozilla confirmed that a certificate for its add-on site had been obtained by the DigiNotar attackers. 'DigiNotar informed us that they issued fraudulent certs for in July, and revoked them within a few days of issue,' Johnathan Nightingale, director of Firefox development, said Wednesday. Looy's number is similar to the tally of certificates that Google has blacklisted in Chrome."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hackers May Have Nabbed Over 200 SSL Certificates

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Boring (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gerald ( 9696 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2011 @07:27PM (#37270242) Homepage

    "If you think it's nice that you can remove the DigiNotar CA, imagine a world where you couldn't, and they knew you couldn't. That's DNSSEC." -- Moxie Marlinspike []

  • Re:Boring (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31, 2011 @07:37PM (#37270334)

    Those are Google's nameservers.

    As long as we're distrusting authority you might want to mention that.

    Using DNS provided by an advertising firm isn't exactly the healthiest thing for your privacy, maybe not now, but when those become the new 4.2.2.[1-3] and Google can monetize them.

    Anyone who cares about his privacy should never rely on a Google product.

  • Re:Boring (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2011 @10:58PM (#37271642) Homepage
    Unfortunately the registrar system is rather less trustworthy than you imagine. We have not to date encountered an outright criminal CA. We do however know of several ICANN registrars that are run by criminal gangs.

    The back end security model of the DNS system is not at all good. While in theory a domain can be 'locked' there is no document that explains how locking is achieved at the various registry back ends. A domain that is not locked or one that is fraudulently unlocked is easily compromised.

    The part of the CA system that has been the target of recent attacks is the reseller networks and smaller CAs. These are exactly the same sort of company that runs a registrar. In fact many registrars are turning to CAs to run their DNSSEC infrastructure since the smaller ones do not have the technical ability to do it in house. In fact a typical registrar is a pure marketing organization with all technical functions outsourced.

    There are today about 20 active CAs and another 100 or so affiliates with separate brands. In contrast there are over a thousand ICANN registrars.

    Sure there are some advantages to incorporating DNSSEC into the security model. But to improve security it should be an additional check, not a replacement. Today DNSSEC is an untried infrastructure, it is grafted on to a legacy infrastructure that is very old and complex and security is an afterthought.

    The current breach is not even an SSL validation failure. The attacker obtained the certificate by bypassing the SSL validation system entirely and applying for an S/MIME certificate that did not have an EKU (which it should). That makes it a technical exploit rather than a validation issue. DNSSEC is a new code base and a very complicated one. Anyone who tells you that it is not going to have similar technical issues is a snake oilsman.

  • by Onymous Coward ( 97719 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2011 @10:59PM (#37271648) Homepage

    SSL And The Future Of Authenticity, Moxie Marlinspike []:

    Worse, far from providing increased trust agility, DNSSEC-based systems actually provide reduced trust agility. As unrealistic as it might be, I or a browser vendor do at least have the option of removing VeriSign from the trusted CA database, even if it would break authenticity with some large percentage of sites. With DNSSEC, there is no action that I or a browser vendor could take which would change the fact that VeriSign controls the .com TLD.

    If we sign up to trust these people, we're expecting them to willfully behave forever, without any incentives at all to keep them from misbehaving. The closer you look at this process, the more reminiscent it becomes. Sites create certificates, those certificates are signed by some marginal third party, and then clients have to accept those signatures without ever having the option to choose or revise who we trust. Sound familiar?

    The browser CA model is screwed up. DNSSEC is screwed up. What's the answer?

    I think Marlinspike was smart to start with defining the problem. And now, with Convergence, he's also trying to address it. Check it out. (And check out Perspectives. Perspectives is the project he based Convergence on.)

"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama