Firm Grip Handshakes: A Tool for Bidirectional Vouching

  • Omer Berkman
  • Benny Pinkas
  • Moti Yung
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7712)

Abstract

Clients trust servers over the Internet due to their trust in digital signatures of certification authorities (CAs) which comprise the Internet’s trust infrastructure. Based on the recent DigiNotar attack and other attacks on CAs, we formulate here a very strong attack denoted “Certificate in The Middle” (CiTM) and propose a mitigation for this attack. The solution is embedded in a handshake protocol and makes it more robust: It adds to the usual aspect of “CA vouching” a client side vouching for the server “continuity of service,” thus, allowing clients and server to detect past and future breaches of the trust infrastructure. We had simplicity, flexibility, and scalability in mind, solving the problem within the context of the protocol (with the underlying goal of embedding the solution in the TLS layer) with minor field changes, minimal cryptographic additions, no interaction with other protocol layers, and no added trusted parties.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arthur, C.: Rogue web certificate could have been used to attack iran dissidents (August 2011), http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/30/faked-web-certificate-iran-dissidents
  2. 2.
    Dacosta, I., Ahamad, M., Traynor, P.: Trust no one else: Detecting MITM attacks against SSL/TLS without third-parties. In: Foresti, et al. (eds.) [9], pp. 199–216Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dierks, T., Allen, C.: The TLS protocol version 1.0. RFC-2246 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietz, M., Czeskis, A., Balfanz, D., Wallach, D.S.: Origin-bound certificates: a fresh approach to strong client authentication for the web. In: USENIX Security, Berkeley, CA, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eckersley, P., Burns, J.: An observatory for the SSLiverse (2010), https://www.eff.org/files/DefconSSLiverse.pdf
  6. 6.
    EFF: The Sovereign Keys project, https://www.eff.org/sovereign-keys
  7. 7.
    EFF: The EFF SSL observastory (2010), https://www.eff.org/observatory
  8. 8.
    Eronen, P., Tschofenig, H.: Pre-shared key ciphersuites for transport layer security (TLS). RFC-4279 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foresti, S., Yung, M., Martinelli, F. (eds.): ESORICS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7459. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Google: New chromium security features (June 2011), http://blog.chromium.org/2011/06/new-chromium-security-features-june.html
  11. 11.
    Holz, R., Riedmaier, T., Kammenhuber, N., Carle, G.: X.509 forensics: Detecting and localising the SSL/TLS men-in-the-middle. In: Foresti, et al. (eds.) [9], pp. 217–234Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janson, P., Tsudik, G., Yung, M.: Scalability and flexibility in authentication services: The kryptoknight approach. In: Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laurie, B., Langley, A.: Certificate authority transparency and auditability (2011), http://www.links.org/files/CertificateAuthorityTransparencyandAuditability.pdf
  14. 14.
    Marlinspike, M., Perrin, T.: Trust assertions for certificate keys. draft-perrin-tls-tack-00.txt (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marlinspike, M.: Convergence, http://convergence.io
  16. 16.
    Osterweil, E., Kaliski, B., Larson, M., McPherson, D.: Reducing the X.509 attack surface with DNSSEC’s DANE. In: SATIN: Securing and Trusting Internet Names (March 2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor, D., Wu, T., Mavrogiannopoulos, N., Perrin, T.: Using the secure remote password (SRP) protocol for TLS authentication. RFC-5054 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wendlandt, D., Andersen, D.G., Perrig, A.: Perspectives: improving SSH-style host authentication with multi-path probing. In: Isaacs, R., Zhou, Y. (eds.) USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pp. 321–334. USENIX Association (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wikipedia: DigiNotar — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2012), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar
  20. 20.
    Zetter, K.: Hack obtains 9 bogus certificates for prominent websites; traced to Iran (2011), http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/comodo-compromise/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omer Berkman
    • 1
  • Benny Pinkas
    • 2
  • Moti Yung
    • 3
  1. 1.Academic College of Tel Aviv YaffoIsrael
  2. 2.Bar Ilan UniversityIsrael
  3. 3.Google Inc. and Columbia UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations