Security Blog

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

Maintaining digital certificate security

8 iulie 2014
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Google

11 comentarii :

Unknown spunea...

I don't think 'Certificate Transparency' is all it is made out to be.

Why Google has abandoned enforcing certificate revocation via OCSP and CRL, is beyond me. You are the only ones with the position to get the CA's to return revocation information in a timely and meaningful manner - why not do that instead?

Once CT is running, it will just be THAT much easier for all CA's and CA resellers to just tie to that system and market to all the users of those certs (thusly annoying everyone more than they do already with their scanning to get the same data). At least with scanning there is some barrier to entry and time required to do the task...

Why not Hash the domains in CT and only allow 3rd parties to request the presence of the domain via hash (or something similar)? The way it is now, you are just providing SSL Selling Parties a direct marketing list. Google seems smarter than that...

Anyway, glad that this India NIC event seems reasonably well contained, in Chrome, at least. What actions has MSFT taken to limit impact on IE users?

8 iulie 2014 la 14:05
Francophone Bose spunea...

Could you please clarify what do you mean by Google Domains?

9 iulie 2014 la 10:29
Unknown spunea...

I would like to know whether other rogue certificates found under CCA. Also, whether the others were also issued by NICCA or some other authority under CCA, and if so, which one.

10 iulie 2014 la 08:49
MLH spunea...

Um. So is Google still formally opposed to cert revocation checks?

10 iulie 2014 la 10:08
tlund spunea...

If we could migrate over to DANE, we could do away with this entire CA structure. There would be no need to "trust" these hundreds of (possibly corrupt, possibly hacked) CA:s spread over the entire world.

A good first step would be to get DANE support (back) in Chrome ;)

10 iulie 2014 la 12:12
Yago Jesus spunea...

Do you know SSLCop ? http://www.security-projects.com/?SSLCop

10 iulie 2014 la 13:13
Unknown spunea...

Google, when will you start using DNSSEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions) and DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE, RFC6698) to combat such "attacks"?

10 iulie 2014 la 20:23
Unknown spunea...

Hello,

I was wondering how you detected the rogue certificates?

Thanks.

11 iulie 2014 la 09:40
Glen spunea...

Could you do this for most CAs where they have an obvious scope, especially those operated by country governments?

11 iulie 2014 la 14:00
KK spunea...

CCA India confirms that suspension and revocation of NIC CA has been reverted from there end but still on Chrome SSL issued by NIC and other DSCs are not working on chrome and IE. My question to Google is that why Chrome is still not allowing it...

Thanks
Kaushlesh Kumar

28 iulie 2014 la 02:35
ICS Cyber Security spunea...

don't think 'Certificate Transparency' is all it is made out to be.
digital certificate

16 august 2014 la 16:49

Trimiteți un comentariu

  

Etichete


  • #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
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2024
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2023
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2022
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2021
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2020
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2019
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2018
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2017
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2016
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2015
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2014
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2013
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • aug.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2012
    • dec.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
    • ian.
  •     2011
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
    • feb.
  •     2010
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • mai
    • apr.
    • mar.
  •     2009
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mar.
  •     2008
    • dec.
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • aug.
    • iul.
    • mai
    • feb.
  •     2007
    • nov.
    • oct.
    • sept.
    • iul.
    • iun.
    • mai

Feed

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