Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

10/14/2016
03:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Thousands Of Secure Websites Dubbed Insecure Due To Cert Error

A certificate revocation exercise gone awry At GlobalSign is browsers to mistakenly treat many sites as insecure. For some users, the problem could take up to four days to resolve.

A maintenance exercise gone awry at root certificate authority GlobalSign caused what could be thousands of websites to be mistakenly treated as insecure by web browsers and therefore become inaccessible to users attempting to reach them.

GlobalSign itself has resolved the issue at its end. But users who visited the affected sites before the problem was resolved could find themselves being blocked until their browser cache expires—a process that could take four or more days.

In an alert this week, GlobalSign described the problem as stemming from its revocation of a cross-certificate linking two root certificates. As a certificate authority that manages several root certificates, GlobalSign provides cross-certificates linking the roots to maximize effectiveness across different platforms, the company said in its alert.

During a scheduled cleanup of some of the links last week, GlobalSign revoked a cross-certificate linking two root certificates. The revoked certificate was included in a Certificate Revocation List (CRL) published Oct. 7.

About a week later, on Oct. 13, when GlobalSign’s delegated Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responder database was updated, it incorrectly determined that all intermediate or downstream certificates associated with the root had been revoked as well, along with the cross certificate.

This caused browsers that use OCSP to determine the revocation status of digital certificates, to treat thousands of websites using the “revoked” certificates as untrustworthy and in some cases preventing access to the sites.

In an update on the issue posted Friday, GlobalSign said it uses a third-party OCSP responder system for relaying information about the status of its certificates.

“However, and unfortunately for our ecosystem and our stakeholders and their customers, the logic within the responder code base determined that the revocation of the Cross Certificate … was effectively an instruction to also identify all other subordinate certificate authorities,” as bad, the company said.

“We made a couple of incorrect assumptions,” in revoking the cross-certificate linking two roots, says Steve Roylance, strategic products director at GlobalSign, in comments to Dark Reading.

When revoking the certificate, GlobalSign had no idea that the OCSP server would push out responses indicating intermediate certificates had been revoked, he said. “That was unfortunate and not something that was expected,” Roylance says. “It came as a surprise to us,” Roylance says. He added that it is not possible to say how many websites might have been affected by the mix-up.

Since discovering the problem, GlobalSign has removed the cross-certificate from the OCSP database and cleared all caches and made new intermediate certificates available to customers, the company said. However, some end users could continue to experience difficulties accessing affected websites since their browser caches would still show the sites as being untrustworthy. In such situations, the problems will resolve in about four days when the caches refresh, the company said.

Kevin Bocek, vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi, says GlobalSign’s customers too could run into problems installing the newly issued intermediate certificates.

“Do security operations teams know they use GlobalSign? Do they know where the servers that use GlobalSign are located?” he says. “Do they know how to add new CA certificates to application truststores,” he said noting differences in the process for doing so between different applications like WebSphere, Microsoft IIS, and Apache.

“In our experience, most organizations do not have this visibility and are unable to quickly locate and change out certificates,” he says.

Related stories

 

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
10/16/2016 | 8:11:24 PM
Browser choice
This is one reason of many I don't rely solely on Firefox.  The blasted thing sometimes won't let you override "certificate errors" that are obviously problematic themselves.
Luxi_Turna
100%
0%
Luxi_Turna,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/15/2016 | 6:41:13 PM
Classic techno screw-up
I thought I was reading The Andromeda Strain.

Simple errors like this spark a "domino effect" failure chain that ends with someone losing all their business records, a hospital making the same fatal mistake on dozens of patients, or a whole town of people being killed like in Bhopal.

Google "failure mode analysis." You'll never feel smug again.

Which is as it should be.
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/1/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "Well I dont run on MacOS, so I need to take extra precautions"
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13759
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-02
rust-vmm vm-memory before 0.1.1 and 0.2.x before 0.2.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (loss of IP networking) because read_obj and write_obj do not properly access memory. This affects aarch64 (with musl or glibc) and x86_64 (with musl).
CVE-2020-7662
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-02
websocket-extensions npm module prior to 1.0.4 allows Denial of Service (DoS) via Regex Backtracking. The extension parser may take quadratic time when parsing a header containing an unclosed string parameter value whose content is a repeating two-byte sequence of a backslash and some other characte...
CVE-2020-7663
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-02
websocket-extensions ruby module prior to 0.1.5 allows Denial of Service (DoS) via Regex Backtracking. The extension parser may take quadratic time when parsing a header containing an unclosed string parameter value whose content is a repeating two-byte sequence of a backslash and some other charact...
CVE-2020-12017
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-02
GE Grid Solutions Reason RT Clocks, RT430, RT431, and RT434, all firmware versions prior to 08A05. The device’s vulnerability in the web application could allow multiple unauthenticated attacks that could cause serious impact. The vulnerability may allow an unauthenticated attacke...
CVE-2018-18623
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-02
Grafana 5.3.1 has XSS via the "Dashboard > Text Panel" screen. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2018-12099.