IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] Further MD5 breaks: Creating a rogue CA certificate

"RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu> Mon, 05 January 2009 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <saag-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: saag-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-saag-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D673A6A97; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 22:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928463A69A0 for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:18:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.942, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGV-9fDERKts for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu (mxout5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81B83A680D for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.7] (may be forged)) by mxout5.cac.washington.edu (8.14.3+UW08.09/8.14.3+UW08.11) with ESMTP id mBULIO3h014517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:18:24 -0800
X-Auth-Received: from D-140-142-21-194.dhcp4.washington.edu (D-140-142-21-194.dhcp4.washington.edu [140.142.21.194]) (authenticated authid=rlmorgan) by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.3+UW08.09/8.14.3+UW08.11) with ESMTP id mBULIOpq023005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:18:24 -0800
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:17:50 -0800
From: RL 'Bob' Morgan <rlmorgan@washington.edu>
X-X-Sender: rlmorgan@perf.cac.washington.edu
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <p0624081dc5802a331eac@[10.20.30.158]>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0812301313570.2644@perf.cac.washington.edu>
References: <200812301605.mBUG5cKU027325@raisinbran.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <9535147E88DA266C69B983D0@atlantis.pc.cs.cmu.edu> <p0624081dc5802a331eac@[10.20.30.158]>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.0.356843, Antispam-Engine: 2.6.1.350677, Antispam-Data: 2008.12.30.210424
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report='BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_700_799 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0'
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:54:23 -0800
Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org, ietf-smime@imc.org, cfrg@irtf.org, saag@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [saag] Further MD5 breaks: Creating a rogue CA certificate
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: saag-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: saag-bounces@ietf.org

> Regardless of that, the authors of the MD5 paper are correct: trust 
> anchors signed with MD5 are highly questionable as of today (well, 
> actually, since they published their last paper). Hopefully, the 
> maintainers of the popular trust anchor repositories (Microsoft, 
> Mozilla, etc.) will yank out the trust anchors signed with MD5 (and 
> MD2!) as soon as possible.

This is a different claim than "CAs should stop issuing certs with MD5 
signatures", which is what I as an amateur take away from a quick scan of 
the material.  Obviously MD5 is suspect in various ways, but does this new 
work lead to the conclusion that MD5-signed roots are untrustworthy today?
Replacing a root is a much bigger deal then changing signing practices.

  - RL "Bob"

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email