Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

How does certificate signing not mitigate man-in-the-middle? Say you have control of DNS and you can fully impersonate and replace any server. You present a valid certificate for the server. It has the public key, which the client uses to try to encrypt traffic. The man-in-the-middle doesn't have the private certificate. You convince the client its talking to the right machine, but then you can't understand anything the client has to say, because it uses the legitimate public key.

Say you have control of the infrastructure and you forge a certificate. You'll have a hard time getting the client to trust the certificate unless you have compromised the signing key of a certificate authority and generated an apparently valid cert.

So, can it entirely prevent it? Can I get verisign to issue me a certificate for G00GLE INC.? If you can alter the client's list of trusted authorities, you can make yourself an authority, but you've already compromised the client. If you can get the server's private certificate, you've compromised the server. You can get creative, sure...probably, you stand a better chance of beating the people in the chain than the technology...but the difficulty of doing so seems to amount to 'mitigation' at the least.




Parent isn't wrong... technically.

Certificate Transparency exists, solely because any CA can issue an SSL cert for any domain, and use it to MITM via a proxy.

You are trusting every CA out there, not just Verisign. That is the ultimate weakness. Any CA can issue a cert for any domain.

Expect-CT header is the only thing protecting you from a MITM, and it's not even a protection, really, and it's trivial to strip that header as the MITM before proxying to the client.

How do you think mitmproxy[0] works?

[0] https://mitmproxy.org/




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: