----- Forwarded message from CERT Advisory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----

> From: CERT Advisory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:04:36 -0400 (EDT)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: CERT Advisory CA-2000-08
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> CERT Advisory CA-2000-08 Inconsistent Warning Messages in Netscape
> Navigator
> 
>    Original release date: May 26, 2000
>    Last Revised: --
>    Source: CERT/CC
>    
>    A complete revision history is at the end of this file.
>    
> Systems Affected
> 
>      * Systems running Netscape Navigator, up to and including Navigator
>        4.73, without the Personal Security Manager installed
>        
> Overview
> 
>    A flaw exists in Netscape Navigator that could allow an attacker to
>    masquerade as a legitimate web site if the attacker can compromise the
>    validity of certain DNS information. This is different from the
>    problem reported in CERT Advisory CA-2000-05, but it has a similar
>    impact. This vulnerability was recently discovered by Kevin Fu of of
>    the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, independently, by Jon
>    Guyer.
>    
>    If a user visits a web site in which the certificate name does not
>    match the site name and proceeds with the connection despite the
>    warning produced by Netscape, then subsequent connections to any sites
>    that have the same certificate will not result in a warning message.
>    
>    It should be noted that neither this vulnerability, nor the one
>    described in CERT Advisory CA-2000-05 represent a weakness or
>    vulnerability in SSL. Rather, these problems are a result of the
>    fundamentally insecure nature of the DNS system, combined with an
>    over-reliance on web browsers to do "sanity checking." In both cases,
>    it is (and has been) within the power of the user to validate
>    connections by examining certificates and verifying the certificates
>    against their expectations.
>    
>    Netscape and other browsers take steps to warn users when the DNS
>    information appears to be suspicious; the browser may not be able to
>    do all the checks necessary to ensure that the user is connecting to
>    the correct location. Therefore, as a general practice, the CERT/CC
>    recommends validating certificates before any sensitive transactions.
>    
> I. Description
> 
>    Digital certificates are small documents used to authenticate and
>    encrypt information transmitted over the Internet. One very common use
>    of digital certificates is to secure electronic commerce transactions
>    through SSL. The kind of certificates used in e-commerce transactions
>    are called X.509 certificates. The X.509 certificates help a web
>    browser and the user ensure that any sensitive information transmitted
>    over the Internet is readable only by the intended recipient. This
>    requires verifying the recipient's identity and encrypting data so
>    that only the recipient can decrypt it.
>    
>    The "padlock" icon used by Netscape, Internet Explorer, and other
>    browsers is an indication that an SSL-secured transaction has been
>    established to someone. It does not necessarily indicate to whom the
>    connection has been established. Netscape and other browsers take
>    steps to warn users when DNS-based information conflicts with the
>    strongly authenticated information contained in the X.509 certificates
>    used in SSL transactions. These warnings are supplemental information
>    to help users decide if they're connecting to whom they think they are
>    connecting. These steps and warnings are designed to protect against
>    attacks on the DNS information.
>    
>    If you rely solely on the warning dialogs provided by web browsers to
>    determine if the connection is with whom you think it is or if you do
>    not fully understand the implications of the dialogs, then you may be
>    subject to the attacks described in this document and CA-2000-05.
>    
>    The essence of the problem is this: Within one Netscape session, if a
>    user clicks on "continue" in response to a "hostname does not match
>    name in certificate" error, then that certificate is incorrectly
>    validated for future use in the Netscape session, regardless of the
>    hostname or IP address of other servers that use the certificate.
>    
>    For example, suppose that an attacker constructs a web site named
>    example.com, authenticated by a certificate that does not match
>    example.com, and convinces a victim to navigate there. Netscape will
>    present a warning dialog indicating that the site to which the user
>    thinks she's navigating (www.example.com) does not match the
>    information presented in the certificate. If the user does not intend
>    to provide any sensitive information to www.example.com, she may
>    choose to continue with the connection (i.e., she may choose to click
>    "OK" in response to the warning dialog), possibly attributing the
>    warning dialog to a benevolent misconfiguration on the part of
>    example.com or failing to understand the implications of the warning
>    dialog.
>    
>    Then, within the same session, no warning dialogs will be presented
>    under the following circumstances:
>      * the attacker co-opts the DNS system in some fashion to cause the
>        DNS name of a legitimate site to resolve to the IP address of a
>        system under the control of the attacker
>      * the system under the control of the attacker is authenticated
>        using the same certificate as www.example.com, which the user
>        previously accepted in the warning dialog mentioned above
>      * the victim attempts to connect to the legitimate site (but instead
>        gets directed to the site under the control of the attacker by
>        virtue of the attack on DNS)
>        
>    This allows the attacker to bypass the ordinary "sanity checking" done
>    by Netscape, and the result is that the user may provide sensitive
>    information to the attacker.
>    
> II. Impact
> 
>    Attackers can trick users into disclosing information (such as credit
>    card numbers, personal data, or other sensitive information) intended
>    for a legitimate web site - if the user has previously accepted a
>    certificate in which the name recorded in the certificate does not
>    match the DNS name of the web site to which the user is connecting.
>    
> III. Solution
> 
> Check Certificates
> 
>    The CERT/CC recommends that prior to providing any sensitive
>    information over SSL, you check the name recorded in the certificate
>    to be sure that it matches the name of the site to which you think you
>    are connecting. For example, in Netscape, click on the "padlock" icon
>    to engage the "Security Info" dialog box. Then click on the "View
>    Certificate" button. A dialog box will appear, listing the certificate
>    authority that signed the certificate and the server for which it was
>    issued. If you do not trust the certificate authority or if the name
>    of the server does not match the site to which you think you're
>    connecting, be suspicious.
>    
> Validate Certificates Independently
> 
>    Web browsers come configured to trust a variety of certificate
>    authorities. If you delete the certificates of all the certificate
>    authorities in your browser, then whenever you encounter a new SSL
>    certificate, you will be prompted to validate the certificate
>    yourself. You can do this by validating the fingerprint on the
>    certificate through an alternate means, such as the telephone. That
>    is, the same dialog box mentioned above also lists a fingerprint for
>    the certificate. If you wish to validate the certificate yourself,
>    call the organization for which the certificate was issued and ask
>    them to confirm the fingerprint on the certificate.
>    
>    Deleting the certificates of the certificate authorities in your
>    browser will cause the browser to prompt you for validation whenever
>    you encounter a new site certificate. This may be inconvenient and
>    cumbersome, but it provides you with greater control over which
>    certificates you accept.
>    
>    It is also important to note that this sort of verification is only
>    effective if you have an independent means through which to validate
>    the certificate. This sort of validation is called out-of-band
>    validation. For example, calling a phone number provided on the same
>    web page as the certificate does not provide any additional security.
>    
>    The CERT/CC encourages all organizations engaging in electronic
>    commerce to train help desk or customer support personnel to answer
>    questions about certificate fingerprints.
>    
> Reject certificates that don't match the host name
> 
>    As a specific defense against this vulnerability, we recommend not
>    accepting certificates that don't match the host name. The most likely
>    cause of a non-matching certificate is a configuration error on the
>    part of the web server administrator. However, a user is unable to
>    distinguish between a benign misconfiguration and a malicious attack.
>    Even if the user does not intend to provide any sensitive information
>    to a site with a non-matching certificate, answering "OK" to this
>    dialog may permit an attacker to successfully carry out the exploit.
>    
> Stay up-to-date with patches, workarounds, and certificate management
> products
> 
>    Apply a patch from your vendor. Appendix A contains vendor
>    information.
>    
> Appendix A Vendor Information
> 
> iPlanet
> 
>    [...] the potential exploit in question can be completely prevented if
>    the user does not click "continue" as stated above. Because of this
>    safety measure, we do not feel an emergency release is necessary.
>    However, we are planning on fixing this in a future release of
>    Communicator, scheduled for release later this year.
>    
>    Additionally, this flaw was fixed in PSM approximately 6 months before
>    [the initial report of the vulnerability].
>      _________________________________________________________________
>    
>    The CERT Coordination Center thanks Kevin Fu of MIT and Jon Guyer for
>    initially discovering and reporting this vulnerability, and their help
>    in constructing this advisory.
>      _________________________________________________________________
>    
>    Shawn Hernan was the primary author of this document.
>    ______________________________________________________________________
>    
>    This document is available from:
>    http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-08.html
>    ______________________________________________________________________
>    
> CERT/CC Contact Information
> 
>    Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>           Phone: +1 412-268-7090 (24-hour hotline)
>           Fax: +1 412-268-6989
>           Postal address:
>           CERT Coordination Center
>           Software Engineering Institute
>           Carnegie Mellon University
>           Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
>           U.S.A.
>           
>    CERT personnel answer the hotline 08:00-20:00 EST(GMT-5) / EDT(GMT-4)
>    Monday through Friday; they are on call for emergencies during other
>    hours, on U.S. holidays, and on weekends.
>    
> Using encryption
> 
>    We strongly urge you to encrypt sensitive information sent by email.
>    Our public PGP key is available from
>    
>    http://www.cert.org/CERT_PGP.key
>        
>    If you prefer to use DES, please call the CERT hotline for more
>    information.
>    
> Getting security information
> 
>    CERT publications and other security information are available from
>    our web site
>    
>    http://www.cert.org/
>        
>    To be added to our mailing list for advisories and bulletins, send
>    email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include SUBSCRIBE
>    your-email-address in the subject of your message.
>    
>    * "CERT" and "CERT Coordination Center" are registered in the U.S.
>    Patent and Trademark Office.
>    ______________________________________________________________________
>    
>    NO WARRANTY
>    Any material furnished by Carnegie Mellon University and the Software
>    Engineering Institute is furnished on an "as is" basis. Carnegie
>    Mellon University makes no warranties of any kind, either expressed or
>    implied as to any matter including, but not limited to, warranty of
>    fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability, exclusivity or
>    results obtained from use of the material. Carnegie Mellon University
>    does not make any warranty of any kind with respect to freedom from
>    patent, trademark, or copyright infringement.
>      _________________________________________________________________
>    
>    Conditions for use, disclaimers, and sponsorship information
>    
>    Copyright 2000 Carnegie Mellon University.
>    
>    Revision History
> May 26, 2000: initial release
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
> Charset: noconv
> 
> iQA/AwUBOS6OtFr9kb5qlZHQEQLjKQCdEbfx5sK5tHdVqIwl/QBg85xp8XwAoJKL
> EnxnMBEMvwMc2xCXTyodwLkS
> =38iT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 

----- End forwarded message -----

        Ronny

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utk berhenti langganan, kirim email ke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Informasi arsip di http://www.linux.or.id/milis.php3
Pengelola dapat dihubungi lewat [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Kirim email ke