Security Blog

The latest news and insights from Google on security and safety on the Internet

An update on attempted man-in-the-middle attacks

29 de agosto de 2011
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Google

26 comentários :

Paul van Brouwershaven disse...

Does this also include the "DigiNotar PKIoverheid CA Overheid en Bedrijven" root which is maintained by the same company?

30 de agosto de 2011 às 02:03
Unknown disse...

And how about the Google Talk? Despite Chrome and Firefox, it didn't give any alert while signing in my account. Unfortunately, Google Talk hasn't been updated for a long time!

30 de agosto de 2011 às 03:47
ifhayati disse...

What can we do?

30 de agosto de 2011 às 04:02
پدرام disse...

Unfortunately we can not use 2-step verification in Iran.Please make available.

30 de agosto de 2011 às 05:52
Unknown disse...

What about users who are using outlook to check their GMail box?

30 de agosto de 2011 às 07:11
Anônimo disse...

Could you explain how Chrome was able to detect the fraudulent certificate ?

30 de agosto de 2011 às 08:42
ayeomans disse...

I've been using Firefox "Certificate Patrol" extension, and for some weeks I've noticed a high number of warnings of changed certificates coming from Google sites. I've no particular reason to think these were MITM attacks, but at the time suspected it depended on which load-balanced server the connection was made to.

The current mix of wildcard and specific certificates across several domains that Google uses makes it less easy to spot changed certificates.

Do you have any policies about keeping server certs globally synchronised to help in such MITM detection?

30 de agosto de 2011 às 09:33
Julio Belinchón Hernández disse...

Pienso que con la suite de Navegadores Netscape 9, SeaMonkey 4.3 o Mozilla 8.0 tambien se encuentran protegidos.

Julio Belinchón Hernández.

30 de agosto de 2011 às 13:01
MMMMMM disse...

Opera users are also automatically protected.

http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2011/08/30/when-certificate-authorities-are-hacked-2

30 de agosto de 2011 às 13:12
mim disse...

it's Irans Governement, want to spy ppl g-mail account ...
please do something against them, it's truly illegal and irespected action :(

30 de agosto de 2011 às 16:14
Mehrdad disse...

Hi
I'm a Iranian User
Really thanks for warning.
This problem was prevalent in recent days.
many of my friends said me it happened for them.

30 de agosto de 2011 às 16:25
AliReza Yazdanpanah disse...

what are you talking about ?
its just end user that is under pressure every time.from Both Government and Google,
Google also blocked lots of its service from Iran ,
it blocked google Code,Google API and lots of other service,
why ?
we have to use tool provided by US Government in order to prevent its sanction on internet.
I mean that US Government put sanction on Internet access on some site,and it self provide us lots of tools to prevent this sanction.
tools like VPN,Your Freedom,CProxy,Tor,Radio Farda and lots of other tools that US Gov Support them.

31 de agosto de 2011 às 01:04
ksec disse...

"Google Chrome users were protected from this attack because Chrome was able to detect the fraudulent certificate."..."In addition in Chromium 13, only a very small subset of CAs have the authority to vouch for Gmail (and the Google Accounts login page)."

Could you give a link to the chromium code where this subset of CAs exists and the check occurs?

Thanks!

31 de agosto de 2011 às 02:57
Madis disse...

It would be interesting to know the background and reasons of the attack.

31 de agosto de 2011 às 03:41
Alireza disse...

Only if we were allowed to update chrome in Iran!

31 de agosto de 2011 às 07:01
mirkhosro disse...

It's ironic that you cannot download and install Chrome in Iran because of US export laws. If you really care about protecting your Iranian users why don't you make Chrome available to them somehow?
And why should installing a web browser be included in sanctions? This is basically a sanction against Iranian people not Iranian regime.

31 de agosto de 2011 às 10:51
BSarif disse...

Commenting From Iran.
Was the attack confirmed successful?
This blog was govermentally filtered in iran since 5 hours ago.for me, it is enough proof to see this as a iran's DAMNED government action spending money on hacking and cyber-violants except of improving the bandwidth and internet.
If you remember some months ago, there was a SSL Stealing of Comodo which IP was compromised as an Iranian Computer too.
_______________
P.S. to iranians
Mitonid az server haye dg vase download google chrome estefade konid. faghat ye search konid baraye downloadesh, server dg e ro peyda konid.

31 de agosto de 2011 às 14:18
booniffle disse...

@Amir: I believe that's because even when free Google Chrome is still a commercial product and therefore bound to the US laws forbidding commerce with Iran.

31 de agosto de 2011 às 16:25
Jonathan Abdo disse...

Would that be why I've been getting the icon in Chrome that some elements in gmail were insecure? What kind of information could they feasibly have?

31 de agosto de 2011 às 18:28
mirkhosro disse...

@booniffle: Yes, I agree. This is not Google's fault as they are trying to conform with US laws, rather I mean that some of these sanction laws are really stupid and even against what they were meant for in the first place. For example, every body knows that Iranian government can get their hands on these "sensitive" software products through different channels with no difficulty, rather the burden, and now insecurity, is what is left for Iranian people, especially those who are not so tech-savvy.
I wish some action would be taken by US government to review and revise some of their sanction laws.

1 de setembro de 2011 às 00:42
ViR-EnG disse...

the 2-Step Verification is Not Support in IRAN , and IRAN Government Can Easily Spy Iranian ppl's Gmail Account . Please Support it for IRANian ppl

1 de setembro de 2011 às 06:38
Neil disse...

If you cannot download Chrome in your country due to export restrictions, or you need a US-based IP for other reasons, try a free VPN service such as (for example) www.raptorvpn.com .

1 de setembro de 2011 às 12:56
AKG disse...

To improve the Iranian users security I think Google must enable the 2-step verification for Iran.

If you think due to US sanctions it should be disable then why the Google SMS service is available in recovering password option?

I always believed in Google privacy policies, the privacy of Iranian users must be intact by all means.

1 de setembro de 2011 às 23:02
Gary Horn disse...

What about the Google browser on Android? Is there a way we can disable the DigiNotar certificate? Or will an updated app be published?

2 de setembro de 2011 às 17:47
adamrights disse...

I would assume Iranians can use Chromium though since that is an open source project that is not a commercial product. Is this correct?

13 de setembro de 2011 às 01:45
Unknown disse...

عندي مشكلها بلموقع البريدالكتروني بتهية ولكن كيف فانا ماريد افقد الموقع حقي والبيانات+الاصدقاء بجوجل + ولا اعرف كيف وفية مشكلة بتزامن وتهيات البريد الكتروني فهل في لاصلاح الموقع مع التزامن ومشكورين لكي لا افقد شئ من الموقع حقي حتي الرسايل البريد الكتروني برضو مشكلة ولا اعرف كيف

14 de dezembro de 2013 às 10:53

Postar um comentário

  

Marcadores


  • #sharethemicincyber
  • #supplychain #security #opensource
  • android
  • android security
  • android tr
  • app security
  • big data
  • biometrics
  • blackhat
  • C++
  • chrome
  • chrome enterprise
  • chrome security
  • connected devices
  • CTF
  • diversity
  • encryption
  • federated learning
  • fuzzing
  • Gboard
  • google play
  • google play protect
  • hacking
  • interoperability
  • iot security
  • kubernetes
  • linux kernel
  • memory safety
  • Open Source
  • pha family highlights
  • pixel
  • privacy
  • private compute core
  • Rowhammer
  • rust
  • Security
  • security rewards program
  • sigstore
  • spyware
  • supply chain
  • targeted spyware
  • tensor
  • Titan M2
  • VDP
  • vulnerabilities
  • workshop


Archive


  •     2025
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2024
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2023
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2022
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2021
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2020
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2019
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2018
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2017
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2016
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2015
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2014
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2013
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • ago.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2012
    • dez.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
    • jan.
  •     2011
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
    • fev.
  •     2010
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • mai.
    • abr.
    • mar.
  •     2009
    • nov.
    • out.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mar.
  •     2008
    • dez.
    • nov.
    • out.
    • ago.
    • jul.
    • mai.
    • fev.
  •     2007
    • nov.
    • out.
    • set.
    • jul.
    • jun.
    • mai.

Feed

Follow
Give us feedback in our Product Forums.
  • Google
  • Privacy
  • Terms