(no title)
aeijdenberg | 9 years ago
In that manner they can piggy-back on top of the CT ecosystem (including existing logs, including existing search / monitoring tools, and presumably gossip if/when that's solved).
This seems like a really cool hack! The state of binary software distribution is really pretty scary when you think about it - techniques like this have the potential to restore a lot of confidence.
kbenson|9 years ago
Interesting. I assume this either helped with the evidence for - or was developed because of - the whole Symantec CA dustup going on?
aeijdenberg|9 years ago
[0] https://security.googleblog.com/2015/09/improved-digital-cer... [1] http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/450411573/Certific... [2]
zackelan|9 years ago
https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/01/already-on-probatio...
> Ayer discovered the unauthorized certificates by analyzing the publicly available certificate transparency log
That article also links to the primary source, https://www.mail-archive.com/dev-security-policy@lists.mozil... which in turn links to a public viewer for Certificate Transparency logs.
tbl|9 years ago
lucideer|9 years ago
aeijdenberg|9 years ago
If FF is already doing any log inclusion proofs for certificates, then I think including one more (for the FF release itself) would be pretty much line noise.
I think an interesting question arises as to how well with the CT logs themselves would scale to handle the same kinds of certificates for all binaries, if this ends up taking off as a good idea in general. They've had to handle quite an explosion in X509 certificates over the past year or two due to Let's Encrypt. Some of Google's logs now show more than 80,000,000 certificates [0] in there - IIRC 2 years ago it was a low single digit million.
[0] https://crt.sh/monitored-logs
tbl|9 years ago
One is that log bloat is indeed a problem, not so much for the logs, but for those that want to monitor them.
The other is CT has made some tradeoffs to allow cert issuance to be quick. I don't believe binaries need the same tradeoffs, and, for example, instead of an SCT, they should come with an inclusion proof (something I'd like to see for certs, too, in the long run).
twiss|9 years ago
http://blog.airbornos.com/post/2015/04/25/Secure-Delivery-of...