Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion CNNIC Root Inclusion
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
LionheartZhang  
View profile  
 More options Jan 29 2010, 1:04 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.security.policy
From: LionheartZhang <flying19880...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:04:06 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Jan 29 2010 1:04 am
Subject: Re: CNNIC Root Inclusion
On Jan 29, 5:47 am, tophits <wan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> After a second thought, I found that even if Firefox didn't add CNNIC
> root certificate as built-in object, CNNIC still can issue a false
> gmail.com certificate signed by its CNNIC SSL secondary CA certificate
> signed by Entrust.net root CA.  The browser will still accept the
> forged gmail.com certificate without any warning.

> So the inclusion of CNNIC Root CA certificate in Firefox is almost
> equivalent to the endorsement by Entrust.net to sign the CNNIC SSL
> secondary CA certificate, which CNNIC already acquired years ago.

> Thus, it is in fact a serious security design flaw in the way that the
> browser handles SSL certificates in the userage scenario.  I suggest
> the following measures to be taken:

> 1. Display clear warning message of certificate change, which is
> possibly a result of MITM attack with a forged certificate.  Firefox
> should include the addon Certificate Patrol [1] as a built-in module.

> 2. Eye-catching display of certificate signing path for HTTPS
> connections, e.g. in the address bar or a floating warning bar like
> that of an addon installation.  Because general non-expert users even
> don't know how to check the certificate signing path.

> It's a big problem, as you can see the PR China government is actively
> involved in cyber attacks against its citizens.  Their secret agents
> used trojan-horse attacks to intrude gmail and Google services
> successfully[2].  They have clear intention to intercept, snoop or
> spoof SSL connections.  There are successful MITM attack experiments
> done on Internet and Tor network, by forging a certificate which the
> general public users won't notice at all because the browser silently
> accepted it.

> It's a real threat to the trust model of PKI. We should have prompt
> countermeasures and actions.

> References:

> [1] Certificate Patrolhttp://patrol.psyced.org/https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/add...
> [2] Kim Zetter: Google Hack Attack Was Ultra Sophisticated, New
> Details Show; January 14, 2010, 8:01 pm;http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/operation-aurora/

+1,Should use a more compelling way to prompt the user to change any
of the relevant certificate
CNNIC is a puppet for the PRC Government to provide all facilities, we
do not believe CNNIC. I have canceled CNNIC ROOT and the related
certificate of trust option, but not everyone know how to do it. Since
the issuance of certificates for the CNNIC, I have canceled the trust
of Entrust, I would rather give up their certificates and use Entrust
on any website, I do not want this list continues to grow.
I'm just an ordinary Chinese netizens, the main purpose is to obtain
information and knowledge, but the PRC Government do everything
possible to intercept them. The SSL certificate is used to attack no
one will be surprised, there is a certain web-based Chinese netizens
think that this is a matter of course will be happen.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.