Mozilla Asks All CAs To Audit Security Systems

Trailrunner7 writes "Already having revoked trust in all of the root certificates issued by DigiNotar, Mozilla is taking steps to avoid having to repeat that process with any other certificate authority trusted by Firefox, asking all of the CAs involved in the root program to conduct audits of their PKIs and verify that two-factor authentication and other safeguards are in place to protect against the issuance of rogue certificates."

Comments

If you ask nicely enough...

[dremspider]

If you ask nicely enough maybe they will do something about all their problems. What needs to happen is Mozilla needs to get with Microsoft, Chrome, Apple etc and say unless you submit yourself to an INDEPENDENT audit you will be revoked from our default trusted root certs. SSL has been destroyed, not because of protocol problems but because of the companies running the show. It was a race to the bottom from the beginning. Who could provide the cheapest service and make the most profit off of it. This model doesn't mesh well with Security and never will. Once one company operates their systems cheaply, everyone else must follow so as to maintain low prices.

Re:If you ask nicely enough...

[StripedCow]

...unless you submit yourself to an INDEPENDENT audit you will be revoked from our default trusted root certs

In the case of Diginotar, Price Waterhouse Coopers was doing the audits.

Re:If you ask nicely enough...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What needs to happen is Mozilla needs to get with Microsoft, Chrome, Apple etc and say unless you submit yourself to an INDEPENDENT audit you will be revoked from our default trusted root certs.

The recent "Too big to fail" CA == Bank comparision story was all too succinct a comparision, and this method won't work for the same reason an independent audit of the banks won't work. In short, most if not all CAs are likely security bankrupt.

Investigation is likely to find that CAs are only one step above flight by night organisations, with slipshod practices, procedures and security at every possible level, from the main servers to the secretaries email inbox. Are you ready to deal with the fallout from such revelations?

Are you ready to actually revoke security authentication from millions of sites across the internet? Are you ready to deal with every major browser throwing a blue screaming fit every time a user connects to a major web commerce login? Are you ready and able unclog a seized up system, signed up to by every major player on the internet, and which a substantial portion of the modern net itself now rests on?

The major problem here is the browsers, and Mozilla's actions here--requesting the CAs to police themselves--are exactly analogous to how our international banking system was woefully mismanaged over the last decades. What Mozilla should be doing is moving away from reliance on the Certification Authority system altogether. It has failed. It has become dangerous to users and website. It must be replaced or abandoned.

Removing the DEFCON 2 warnings for self signed certs will be the first step in the right direction. Until then, Mozilla is just continuing to be part of the problem.

Two factor, three factor

[roman_mir]

Who can trust a CA? Why would you trust a CA? How did a CA earn your trust?

Mozilla, it's time to own up. This is a bunch of nonsense. Stop treating self signed certificates like cancer, provide a way to see the fingerprint clearly, don't bother with the 'lock' icon and start working on some real innovation - how to do trust by having distributed lists of fingerprints, signatures, whatever. Something that doesn't rely on a signing authority at all.

You want to do real innovation instead of looking at hiding address bar from the users? Do this instead.

Perhaps this will be the first positive change

[inviolet]

"Mozilla [...is...] asking all of the CAs involved in the root program to conduct audits of their PKIs and verify that two-factor authentication and other safeguards are in place to protect against the issuance of rogue certificates."

This may be the first REAL change in the CAs' assessments of the risk versus reward of building and maintaining good layered security systems. Until this week, the idea of a breach leading to delisting and the demise of the organization was an abstract idea. Now it is concrete, which makes all the difference (even though it shouldn't).

Perhaps some mid-level geek will finally, successfully make his case that the issuance process should be airgapped (or other similarly expensive measures).

Unfortunately, we haven't yet seen a change in the economics of issuing a certificate without proper vetting of the requestor. Right now it costs the CA almost nothing to issue a single certificate to somebody who isn't actually who they say they are. And vetting is a real-world activity involving meat and paper, so the MBAs in charge will never put money behind real vetting... until the economics change, anyway.

Security theater - brought to you by the CAs.

[DarkFencer]

It really is security theater now. I've had to get certs from various vendors for the .edu I work at. They need 'official' documents from 'someone important'. Like a letter on official looking letter head with a copy of a photo ID faxed to them. Yeah. Real secure. Lemme break out my copy of photoshop.

How about at the very least the verifications some sites use to show that you control a domain? For example, the CA says that in order to verify 'somesystem.somewhere.com' we're going to need you to put this arbitrary string in a TXT record on your DNS server for that host.

When setting up a domain on Google Apps or MS Live (or other places) they ask you to do this as one of the things to do to prove domain ownership. Yes - obviously if your DNS is owned this isn't a problem, but its a heck of a lot better than the process now.