Re: [TLS] Eleven out of every ten SSL certs aren't valid

Tim Dierks <tim@dierks.org> Tue, 29 June 2010 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tdierks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E2C3A6875 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 V1LbQMab0bf3 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E23E3A6850 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so1163178wyb.31 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=38X4iHUsb4LoRo6Da+X5eXfsft8y32rLBiE9L8tcBmM=; b=Qt8oLgn0Q0pa7tW8Mu1G1Pyx+5rPOW9ZEC5RphP5p/H51AeFyMisYoMSX9t/+bQXLF FVdoKisbuE4KEjZ1GO6YMhj5XAmroS+PpCS0pOXR82nYwi8We/DX8q0TKPkdzVymp9oU QYphCQ203drb220Kv7313ERKf1g7DEa/epkes=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=vngDFevLO0UX3J8Ah1bHtl3l4LgmhPYqeRFqNm+e8ZhtHHkSIluQSLUwVCqRpx8kME zZ0Z5X+kEQG1v8fXeJn6xhpP1j/QEeTwOp+yvqnnW7JYYY+F0W1pEpVN2X5ERazCryRg NyMjvucGZlqFJbMEEE7XX5YNPd5HYdtQ8WwJY=
Received: by 10.227.155.141 with SMTP id s13mr5365980wbw.78.1277822236324; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tdierks@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.148.2 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinwJ5hQTHS0-L0QsAF2bj1cuajfBrg0ZS10wWhp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OTVaY-0004g3-OW@wintermute02.cs.auckland.ac.nz> <201006291350.o5TDoMoO018788@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <AANLkTinwJ5hQTHS0-L0QsAF2bj1cuajfBrg0ZS10wWhp@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Dierks <tim@dierks.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:36:56 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9uWDuP6GhgtK9y_LabpOsYrg8iw
Message-ID: <AANLkTimNoXR1V_YRlUMfuG12rG-hAnw5TqAq0LOnWvxO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Ristic <ivan.ristic@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485f89f047b757c048a2c2cb3"
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Eleven out of every ten SSL certs aren't valid
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:37:13 -0000

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Ivan Ristic <ivan.ristic@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you're referring to my work, I didn't make any assumptions. I
> merely reported the findings, which are that  about 3.17% of domain
> names that respond with SSL on port 443 have a potentially valid
> certificate.
>

In my opinion, this is a pretty meaningless statistic. There's no warranty
that just because a domain name maps to an IP address and that IP address
has an SSL server that the SSL server will respond with a certificate that
matches the domain name in question. If I go and register a thousand domain
names and give each one a CNAME that points to www.modsecurity.org, and you
go and find it serves SSL on 443, but doesn't present the certificates for
my domains, so this percentage goes down, what does that mean? Nothing at
all.

If you had a statistic about what fraction of https:// links on the Internet
point to misconfigured servers, that would be more interesting.

 - Tim