In addition to the things that I described in the Incident Report we have added to our periodic verification procedure the point where a check of "CA/B Forum lint: Summary" site from crt.sh is required at least every 5 days. It should help us to detect any misissuance related to inconsistency with RFC 5280/CABF BR.

In order to prevent such misissuances in the future we are going to add pre-issuance linting in the first half of 2019.

-Wojciech Trapczyński

On 12.10.2018 19:37, Wayne Thayer wrote:
Wojciech,

Thank you for the incident report. I believe it does a good job of explaining how you will prevent this specific problem from happening again, but it does not address the broader problem of misissuance and Certum's failure to detect it. How can the Mozilla community be assured that Certum will detect and prevent all types of certificate misissuance in the future?

- Wayne

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:03 AM Wojciech Trapczyński via dev-security-policy <dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org <mailto:dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org>> wrote:

    Please find our incident report below.

    1. How your CA first became aware of the problem (e.g. via a problem
    report submitted to your Problem Reporting Mechanism, a discussion in
    mozilla.dev.security.policy, a Bugzilla bug, or internal self-audit),
    and the time and date.

      From Bugzilla bug 1495518 created by Wayne Thayer on October 1
    2018 at
    18:42 GMT.

    2. A timeline of the actions your CA took in response. A timeline is a
    date-and-time-stamped sequence of all relevant events. This may include
    events before the incident was reported, such as when a particular
    requirement became applicable, or a document changed, or a bug was
    introduced, or an audit was done.

    Oct 1, 2018 18:42 GMT - The Bugzilla bug 1495518 was created.
    Oct 2, 2018           - We analyzed this case and found the reason for
    misissues. We started to prepare the fix. We found all affected
    certificates. We informed our customers about this bug and necessity to
    revoked certificates.
    Oct 3, 2018 12:00 GMT - We deployed fix on production.

    3. Whether your CA has stopped, or has not yet stopped, issuing
    certificates with the problem. A statement that you have will be
    considered a pledge to the community; a statement that you have not
    requires an explanation.

    Oct 3, 2018 at 12:00 GMT.

    4. A summary of the problematic certificates. For each problem: number
    of certs, and the date the first and last certs with that problem were
    issued.

    Total number of affected valid certificates: 43. All certificates,
    except two, already have been revoked. These two certificates will be
    revoked by the end of this week.

    5. The complete certificate data for the problematic certificates. The
    recommended way to provide this is to ensure each certificate is logged
    to CT and then list the fingerprints or crt.sh IDs, either in the
    report
    or as an attached spreadsheet, with one list per distinct problem.

    In attachement.

    6. Explanation about how and why the mistakes were made or bugs
    introduced, and how they avoided detection until now.

    We did not properly choose the profile name for certification request
    with EC public key in our software. Instead of choose EC profile where
    Key Encipherment value in Key Usage extension is disallowed we choose
    RSA profile where Key Encipherment value in Key Usage extension is
    allowed. The bug was not found by our tests suite because we did not
    have scenario for such case.

    7. List of steps your CA is taking to resolve the situation and ensure
    such issuance will not be repeated in the future, accompanied with a
    timeline of when your CA expects to accomplish these things.

    - We have fixed our software. Now, if a certification request contains
    EC public key only EC certificate profile is allowed to use.
    - We have added the appropriate test case. Now, for every software
    release we check that appropriate profile is chosen for given type of
    public key.
    - We have added an additional protection at the certificate profile
    level in the CA issuing system. Now, the CA system for issuing
    certificates will block the issuance of the certificate if it receives
    unmatched combination of public key and profile.
    _______________________________________________
    dev-security-policy mailing list
    dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
    <mailto:dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org>
    https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to