If you think a bug might affect users in the 57 release, please set the correct tracking and status flags for Release Management.

Symantec Action Items regarding misissued test certs

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

NSS
CA Certificate Root Program
RESOLVED FIXED
2 years ago
5 months ago

People

(Reporter: Kathleen Wilson, Assigned: Kathleen Wilson)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Assignee)

Description

2 years ago
Symantec's report on the incident is here:
https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/sites/default/files/Test_Certificates_Incident_Update.pdf

Discussion about this incident was held in the mozilla.dev.security.policy forum.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/Hkyg_09EDYE/kzQAK3mqAwAJ

The resulting action items for Symantec that we need to track are as follows:

1) Finish helping us update OneCRL with the appropriate records
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1214321#c20

2) Provide a set of steps Symantec will take (or has taken) to correct and prevent each of the identified failures, as well as a timeline for when they expect to complete such work.

3) The third-party security audit (may be part of the annual audits) must assess:
- The veracity of Symantec’s claims that at no time private keys were exposed to Symantec employees by the tool.
- That Symantec employees could not use the tool in question to obtain certificates for which the employee controlled the private key.
- That Symantec’s audit logging mechanism is reasonably protected from modification, deletion, or tampering, as described in Section 5.4.4 of their CPS.

4) As of June 1st, 2016, all certificates issued by Symantec itself will be required to support Certificate Transparency and be published in CT.
(Assignee)

Updated

2 years ago
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
(Assignee)

Updated

2 years ago
(Assignee)

Updated

2 years ago
Duplicate of this bug: 1232217

Comment 2

2 years ago
Maybe I am missing something... The audit is supposed to occur according to policy. The re-audit step already occurred when Trustwave failed. Is there any point in doing it again? What goal will it accomplish? What has changed to warrant yet another re-audit for an audit that's already supposed to be occurring? (For completeness, the last one was well documented: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724929 and https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2012/02/17/message-to-certificate-authorities-about-subordinate-cas/).

Out of morbid curiosity, has Symantec produced any evidence or proof that the audits *actually* occurred in the past?

*****

As a matter of policy and procedure, how many times do included CAs get to fail? Is there a set number, or is it kind of a perpetual thing?

As a matter of policy and procedure, how is this any different than CNNIC and MSC Holdings? Why are different enforcement actions being taken?

Different policies for different CAs is a slippery slope. The existence of different enforcement policies and actions may subject Mozilla to increased legal exposure and increased risk. I've never known it to be wise for a company to increase their legal risk because that's the one that usually hurts the most.

*****

The message Mozilla is sending is very bad for users. The system is built upon trust. If the CAs can't be bothered, then users (like me and you) and sites (like Apple, Google and Microsoft) should not have to endure the failures.

It also appears Mozilla has lost objectivity, perhaps due to its participation CA/Browser forums. Maybe one of the high level engineering changes needed is a separation of concerns.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

2 years ago
Jeffrey, I appreciate your input, but ask that you participate in such discussion in the mozilla.dev.security.policy forum.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mozilla.dev.security.policy
You can review the previous discussions about these things, and ask your questions there. 

I believe that most of your questions are answered in the following references:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:MaintenanceAndEnforcement
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/security-group/certs/policy/
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:IncludedCAs

Also, Symantec's previous audit statements are here:
https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=1565&file=pdf
https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=1566&file=pdf
https://cert.webtrust.org/SealFile?seal=1567&file=pdf
(Assignee)

Comment 4

a year ago
Here's a status update...

> 1) Finish helping us update OneCRL with the appropriate records
Completed April 29: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1214321#c28

> 2) Provide a set of steps Symantec will take (or has taken) to correct and prevent each of the identified failures, as well as a timeline for when they expect to complete such work.
Completed April 21: 
http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/results-our-investigation_0
https://www.symantec.com/page.jsp?id=test-certs-update
https://vs.symantec.com/assets/csv/test-certificate-incident-report-owned-domain-summary_april-2016.csv
https://vs.symantec.com/assets/csv/test-certificate-incident-report-unregistered-domain-summary_april-2016.csv

You might notice that there were a few recently issued test certs, e.g. https://crt.sh/?id=13871207
Symantec's explanation about those test certs was that the code to check the domain names of the test certs had unfortunately been put in to do the checks *after* the cert had been signed. Symantec's test systems in their production environment have since been updated to do the checks *before* the cert and precert are signed. 

> 3) The third-party security audit (may be part of the annual audits) must assess:
> - The veracity of Symantec’s claims that at no time private keys were exposed to Symantec employees by the tool.
> - That Symantec employees could not use the tool in question to obtain certificates for which the employee controlled the private key.
> - That Symantec’s audit logging mechanism is reasonably protected from modification, deletion, or tampering, as described in Section 5.4.4 of their CPS.
Update:
I received email from Symantec on April 21 saying: "Symantec engaged Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP to help us identify any additional mis-issued active test certificates and to help us search for any mis-issued active certificates that were issued for purposes other than internal testing."
The public results of the report are here: https://www.symantec.com/page.jsp?id=test-certs-update
"Deloitte analyzed the approximately 2.18 million digital certificates issued by Symantec that were active as of November 3, 2015. Deloitte used a recommended risk-scoring approach approved by Symantec that was designed to isolate certificates that were at higher risk for being mis-issued, and then manually reviewed documentation provided by Symantec for those certificates. Deloitte subjected the remainder of the active certificates to statistical sampling and manually reviewed the certificate documentation for the sample selection."
...
"We have also worked with KPMG during our annual Web Trust audit, where Symantec’s certificate management practices and internal controls are extensively reviewed. In addition, KPMG will soon be conducting a separate Point in Time readiness assessment."

> 4) As of June 1st, 2016, all certificates issued by Symantec itself will be required to support Certificate Transparency and be published in CT.
Update:
https://www.symantec.com/page.jsp?id=test-certs-update
"We have also now expanded CT support to our Organization Validated (OV) and Domain Validated (DV) products under each of these brands."
(Assignee)

Comment 5

10 months ago
I believe that the action items have been completed.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 months ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Updated

5 months ago
Product: mozilla.org → NSS
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.