Security Blog

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

Enhancing digital certificate security

3 January 2013
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Google

18 comments :

Unknown said...

MSFT is pushing update

Microsoft Security Advisory 2798897

Fraudulent Digital Certificates Could Allow Spoofing

http://technet.microsoft.com/security/advisory/2798897

3 January 2013 at 13:34
dwoz said...

Its a good example of how the best security pracitces we have still go terribly wrong at times.

Daniel Wozniak

3 January 2013 at 14:12
The Locksmith said...

Why does plus.google.com use a *.google.com cert? Seems like extremely poor decision by the plus team and Google Online Security to allow use of a domain wild card cert. In fact, why does a *.google.com cert exist? If you think, nothing wrong with the practice then is plus the only product/service to use a wild card cert?

3 January 2013 at 14:37
Unknown said...

That's why we should finally switch to TLSA RRs, which only make sense with DNSSEC.

If you, fellow readers, administrate a DNS service at your company, get DNSSEC set up. TLSA or CAA afterwards is trivial. Chrome already verifies it, Mozilla has plans to do so (also a nice introduction): https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/DNSSEC-TLS-details#Embedding_Certificate_Information_in_DNS

3 January 2013 at 14:39
Anonymous said...

@Sebastian, yes, let's put registrars and NICs in charge instead... no, thanks!

3 January 2013 at 14:57
Collin said...

The conclusion of the post notes that Google "may also decide to take additional action after further discussion and careful consideration," which to me hints that the Chrome team, as others, are likely considering whether to continue including TURKTRUST root. While I fully appreciate the ramifications of the breach, I would inveigh upon the community to take time to consider subsequent actions. Unfortunately, due to banking embargoes against sanctioned states, there are very few CAs that accept customers from Iran and Syria. TRUSTTRUST and ipsCA (not trusted) are likely the primary CAs for these audiences. Unfortunately if this CA is removed, it is likely that the decision will push many sites into the national, not-trusted and completely compromised CA ParsSign.

3 January 2013 at 17:33
Schmaltz Herring said...

Diginotar CA is gone after what happened. I hope the same will happen to TURKTRUST.

3 January 2013 at 21:00
Unknown said...

As a Turkish citizen, I agree that Turktrust should be condemned. However, previously and duly issued certificates should not be revoked, it is not fair for the merchants who may not (and in all likelihood do not) understand what is going on. That said, I'd like to reiterate that I agree with Google's decision.

4 January 2013 at 03:56
Nephilim said...

@Google: Can you tell us, *how* did you find this out?

4 January 2013 at 07:12
Tritonio said...

Google should ASAP improve the extensions' API to allow extensions like SSL observatory and Convergence to be created for Chrome. Firefox had the proper API for years and I am really thinking of switching back to Firefox because of Chrome's crippled API.

In other words if you actually care about user privacy, give the users tools to make stuff to protect their privacy as *they* see fit.

4 January 2013 at 09:41
Paul B said...

Locksmith: Google probably do NOT use a *.google.com certificate.

The issue here is that SOMEONE ELSE managed to create one (and one that was TRUSTED) and use it for a man-in-the-middle attack against Google.

4 January 2013 at 11:33
Neil Rashbrook said...

@Nephilim My understanding is that Chrome knows who the issuers of the real Google certificates are, so that it can immediately identify a fraudulent certificate.

6 January 2013 at 07:03
Unknown said...

@Paul B:

Google uses *.google.com certs a lot. With quite a lot of Subject Alternative Names.

An example of *.google.com certs for various hosts collected just by browsing (note that some repeat, they are shared for multiple google services).

Another count from an observatory (those are all unique certs, most of which, if not all, belonging really to google):

select count(id) from ee_certs where subject like '%CN=*.google.com%' and not_after >= '2013-01-01';
count
-------
1188

(Sorry if this is double-posted, the comment system does not make it easy).

7 January 2013 at 10:55
newsham said...

Please scope the CAs already. I don't need turktrust or any of its intermediaries signing for anything but *.tr!

8 January 2013 at 17:04
Anonymous said...

so still intermediate CA are issuing such kind of digital certification. If this is happening then how actual digital certificate can be redeem with the parent CA.

10 January 2013 at 12:44
mdav (IRC) said...

It seems the time is right for DANE (RFC6698), so I hope it will be incorporated in Chrome and other browsers some day soon.

31 January 2013 at 10:33
Anonymous said...

Following your online education management site I get more information for my buisness ,If you want to know further more for enhance your buisness follow us on:-The main areas online fake certificates of concern are the rising and growing popularity of so many website fake college transcripts and the standard of study is also falling. It is really important and essential for all organization and also the government to take online fake degrees stringent steps to stop such acts. Make sure you read this article and underside every basic novelty diplomas of the piece and its importance.

13 June 2014 at 02:00
Anonymous said...

Following your education-Digree site I get many information you just follow us on:- The main role of this fake university degrees author is to make you aware about different changes and modifications that are coming when it has to do with fake certificates and other essential which are fake transcripts available, just make sure you follow all such cats and this will guide you through the process of proper career with a valid online fake certificates. You realize and recognize the various fake college transcript impact and effects of original certificates.

20 June 2014 at 01:07

Post a Comment

  

Labels


  • #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
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2024
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2023
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2022
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2021
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2020
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2019
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2018
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2017
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2016
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2015
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2014
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2013
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Aug
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2012
    • Dec
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2011
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
  •     2010
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
  •     2009
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • Mar
  •     2008
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • May
    • Feb
  •     2007
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sept
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May

Feed

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