Legacy of Heartbleed: MITM and Revoked Certificates. Alexey Busygin NeoBIT

Transcription

1 Legacy of Heartbleed: MITM and Revoked Certificates Alexey Busygin NeoBIT

2 Notable Private Key Leaks 2010 DigiCert Sdn Bhd. issued certificates with 512-bit keys 2012 Trustwave issued CA certificate for one of its customers DLP system 2013 DigiNotar CA was totally compromised 2014 Heartbleed bug caused certificate revocation storm certs to be revoked 2015 RSA-CRT private key leaks 2017 Cloudbleed bug in Cloudflare reverse proxies 2

3 Checking Certificate Revocation Status: Certificate Revocation Lists (CRL) CAs publish CRLs lists of revoked certificate serial numbers Normally certificate contains URL of the corresponding CRL Why it s not OK? CRLs are not appropriate for online checks: Excess size (up to 1 MB) Vulnerable to replay attacks 3

4 Checking Certificate Revocation Status: Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) CAs maintain OCSP responders answering with certificate revocation status Normally certificate contains URL of the OCSP responder OCSP provides optional replay attack protection Why it s not OK? Slows down connection establishment Browsing history leaks to CA OCSP responder is DDoS target 4

5 Checking Certificate Revocation Status: OCSP Stapling No browsing history leaks Choose one: o Replay attack protection o TLS server side OCSP response caching: Minimal impact on connection establishment time Reduced load on OCSP responder Why it s not OK? Stapled OCSP responses are optional and may be stripped by MITM OCSP responder is DDoS target (if replay attack protection is enabled) 5

6 Checking Certificate Revocation Status: Vendor Specific Solutions Software updates Revocation information pushes Why it s not OK? Offline revocation check Not controlled by end users What about private CAs? 6

7 Man-in-the-Middle Attack Scenario Use revoked certificate and block revocation info 7

8 Default Revocation Checks: Mozilla Firefox Why it s not OK? Fall-back positions Check local OneCRL store Check stapled OCSP response Query OCSP responder explicitly Soft fail MITM vulnerable OCSP replay attack protection is not supported OCSP stapling for CA certificates is not supported Online checks for DV CA certs are not performed Certificate is valid 8

9 Default Revocation Checks: Google Chrome Check stapled OCSP response Why it s not OK? Fall-back positions Check local CRLSets store Query OCSP responder explicitly (for EV certificates only) Soft fail MITM vulnerable OCSP replay attack protection is not supported OCSP stapling for CA certificates is not supported Online checks for DV CA and EE certificates are not performed Certificate is valid 9

10 Default Revocation Checks: Microsoft Internet Explorer / Edge Why it s not OK? Fall-back positions Check untrusted certificate store Check stapled OCSP response Query OCSP responder explicitly Fetch CRL Soft fail MITM vulnerable OCSP replay attack protection is not supported OCSP stapling for CA certificates is not supported Certificate is valid 10

11 Why is hard fail not enforced? Adam Langley explains: CA infrastructure becomes a single point of failure CA infrastructure becomes a DDoS target Increases CA maintenance costs (more network bandwidth and DDoS protection required) Increases number of connection failures in noisy networks Captive portals frequently deny access to OCSP responders 11

12 Hard Fail Enforcement: Mozilla Firefox Why it s still not OK? Online checks for DV CA certificates are not performed Vulnerable to OCSP or CRL replay attacks Hard fail is enforced for all sites 12

13 Hard Fail Enforcement: Google Chrome Why it s still not OK? Vulnerable to OCSP or CRL replay attacks Hard fail is enforced for all sites 13

14 Hard Fail Enforcement: Microsoft Internet Explorer Edit registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ Microsoft \ Internet Explorer \ Main \ FeatureControl \ FEATURE_WARN_ON_SEC_CERT_REV_FAILED \ iexplore.exe = 1 Why it s still not OK? It doesn t prevent attack Vulnerable to OCSP or CRL replay attacks Hard fail is enforced for all sites 14

15 Hard Fail Enforcement: Squid Proxy TLS decryption (SslBump feature) Custom certificate verification procedures (SSL Server Certificate Validator feature) Optional transparent mode (TPROXY or WCCP features) Enforces hard fail for predefined set of sites Why it s still not OK? Proxy decrypts TLS traffic 15

16 Future Revocation Strategies Not all services require paranoid revocation checks. Strict revocation status checking mode Online checks Replay attack protection Hard fail Lightweight revocation status checking mode Offline checks Short-lived certificates 16

17 Strict Checking Service indicates that strict checking is required via certificate extension field OCSP stapling with replay attack protection for entire certificate chain Hard fail RFC 7633 TLS Feature Extension as strict checking requirement indicator 17

18 Strict Checking: OCSP Availability Enhancements Session resumption via session IDs or session tickets to reduce OCSP responder loads Load balancing between independent CAs: Reduce loads Mitigate DDoS Protect against OCSP responder failures 18

19 Strict Checking: Browser Adoption Chrome (v.59) TLS Feature Extension OCSP replay attack protection OCSP stapling for CA certificates Session resumption (session ID, session ticket) Edge (v.40) IE (v.11) Firefox (v.54) Opera (v.46) 19

20 Lightweight Checking Online checks are not performed End entity certificates with short validity period Certificates are auto renewed Intermediate CA revocation information pushes (CRLSets or OneCRL like) Open standard for TLS client/revocation info pushing service integration is required 20

21 Takeaways Certificate revocation is broken Use secondary browser configuration with enforced hard fail revocation checking to enhance your personal security Use proxy with enforced hard fail revocation checking to enhance security of organization Wait for new revocation checking strategies to be implemented and adopted 21