Dehydrated 使用 ZeroSSL 的方式

上一篇「ZeroSSL 也提供免費的 SSL Certificate (DV) 了」提到 ZeroSSL 的服務,而各家 acme client 也都陸陸續續支援了。

Dehydrated 是在 2020/09/15 的時候實做:「EAB + ZeroSSL support」,我就抓了個新版,更新之前自己包的 PPA dehydrated-lite...

Dehydrated 的設定方式還蠻簡單的,在 /etc/dehydrated/config 裡面這樣寫:


其中兩個 EAB 的資訊可以在 ZeroSSL 網站上面取得,然後其他就照舊跑...

ZeroSSL 也提供免費的 SSL Certificate (DV) 了

Facebook 上被朋友敲可以測 ZeroSSL,另外一個透過 ACME 協定提供免費的 SSL Certificate,不過目前只有支援單一網域名稱 (DV):「Another free CA as an alternative to Let's Encrypt (」。

我先前就有在測 ZeroSSL,不過驗證一直過不去,當時有在 Twitter 上找 ZeroSSL 帳號問,但 ZeroSSL 的人說 ACME 的部份不在客服範圍,就先丟著...

剛剛發現是自己耍笨了,原因是 nginx 沒設好造成驗證卡住,一改好後就正常了。

SSL LabsSSL Server Test 翻了一下,他的 Root CA 看起來歷史更久,應該是有機會解決 Let's Encrypt 明年會產生的 Root CA 憑證信任問題,也就是先前在「Let's Encrypt 在 Android 平台上遇到的問題」提到的問題,在 Hacker News 上的討論也可以看到有人提到這點:

Good to know, and I'm glad there's an alternative to Let's Encrypt, just in case. Is ZeroSSL trusted by old Android devices? If so, that might be a work-around for Let's Encrypt's cross-signing from IdenTrust expiring.


If zerossl is reselling/a subsidiary of sectigo, that’s enough reason to never use this.
Sectigo is the new name for Comodo. The same bunch of pricks who tried to trademark “Let’s Encrypt”.

Other players in the acme cert “business” is great. Renaming a slime ball name and carrying on like nothing happened is not ok.


Firefox 試著透過預載 Intermediate CA 降低連線錯誤發生的機率?

在「Preloading Intermediate CA Certificates into Firefox」這邊看到 Mozilla 的人打算在 Firefox 上預載所有的 Intermediate CA,以降低 HTTPS 連線發生錯誤的作法。這點在 Mozilla 的 Wiki 上也有記錄:「Security/CryptoEngineering/Intermediate Preloading」。

的確如文章裡說的,沒有正確放入 Intermediate CA 是個 server 設定上很常見的錯誤。像是前幾天看到「【茶包射手日記】網站憑證無效案例分析」這篇講的摩斯 其實就是這個案例,用 SSL Labs 的工具就可以掃出來問題:「SSL Report: (」。

問題出在於沒有送出正確的 Intermediate CA(s),所以在 Android 上找不到一條完整的 trust chain:

不過在 Windows 系統內的 CA store 是可以建立出一條完整的 trust chain,所以 Windows 上的 Microsoft EdgeGoogle Chrome 是不會有問題的 (這兩個都吃系統的 CA store):

Linux 上的 Google Chrome 就會出問題 (這邊會吃 Google 自家的 CA store 資料,就是 Android 那包)。

交叉比對中華電信自家的網站,像是「SSL Report: (2001:b000:1a4:d000:203:75:129:111)」這組,可以看到同樣都叫做「Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd. / Public Certification Authority - G2」的 Intermediate CA,但有兩種不同的 SHA256,可以翻到是:「609930eb807ad420afda2a8aa61b67483039168cd766e09942a48bfe7f3bdc10」與「f5fb67c8453eda34dbec8a766574f07a03548c084af2f5e6455ea769608d9ad5」,點入裡面的「Trust」tab 中可以看到中華自己的 CA 與 ePKI 的 CA 都有交叉簽,但卻不是每一個 CA 都有被所有瀏覽器認可,所以在設定的時候就得注意...

話說回來,現在因為 CA/B Forum 的標準有強制要送 CT (Certificate Transparency),的確是有辦法抓出所有的 Intermediate CA 沒錯,但瀏覽器幫使用者預載感覺好像怪怪的?

In essence, Firefox pre-downloads all trusted Web Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) intermediate CA certificates into Firefox via Mozilla’s Remote Settings infrastructure. This way, Firefox users avoid seeing an error page for one of the most common server configuration problems: not specifying proper intermediate CA certificates.

目前大約有 2000 筆資料:

Given this information, we periodically synthesize a list of these intermediate CA certificates and place them into Remote Settings. Currently the list contains over two thousand entries.

這個比較像是 client 端的 hack?

Network Time Security 正式成為 IETF 標準

在「NTS is now an RFC」這邊看到 Network Time Security 成為 IETF 的標準了:「Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol」。

這個標準比較特別的是,因為 TLS 裡對 certificate 的驗證需要先有正確的時間,而導致 NTP 直接套用 TLS 會有「先有雞還是先有蛋」這樣的問題出現。這點在「8.5. Initial Verification of Server Certificates」這個章節裡面被討論到:

However, the expectation that the client does not yet have a correctly-set system clock at the time of certificate verification presents difficulties with verifying that the certificate is within its validity period, i.e., that the current time lies between the times specified in the certificate's notBefore and notAfter fields.


Let's Encrypt 生了新的 Root 與 Intermediate Certificate

Let's Encrypt 弄了新的 Root Certificate 與 Intermediate Certificate:「Let's Encrypt's New Root and Intermediate Certificates」。

一方面是本來的 Intermediate Certificate 也快要要過期了,另外一方面是要利用 ECDSA 降低傳輸時的頻寬成本:

On Thursday, September 3rd, 2020, Let’s Encrypt issued six new certificates: one root, four intermediates, and one cross-sign. These new certificates are part of our larger plan to improve privacy on the web, by making ECDSA end-entity certificates widely available, and by making certificates smaller.

本來有 Let's Encrypt Authority {X1,X2,X3,X4} 四組 Intermediate Certificate,都是 RSA 2048 bits。

其中 X1 與 X2 差不多都到期了 (cross-signed 的已經過了,自家 ISRG Root X1 簽的剩不到一個月),不過這兩組已經沒在用了,這次就不管他了。

而 X3 與 X4 這兩組則是明年到期,會產生出新的 Intermediate Certificate,會叫做 R3 與 R4,跟之前一樣會被自家 ISRG Root X1 簽,以及 IdenTrust DST Root CA X3 簽:

For starters, we’ve issued two new 2048-bit RSA intermediates which we’re calling R3 and R4. These are both issued by ISRG Root X1, and have 5-year lifetimes. They will also be cross-signed by IdenTrust. They’re basically direct replacements for our current X3 and X4, which are expiring in a year. We expect to switch our primary issuance pipeline to use R3 later this year, which won’t have any real effect on issuance or renewal.

然後是本次的重頭戲,會弄出一個新的 Root Certificate,叫做 ISRG Root X2,以及兩個 Intermediate Certificate,叫做 E1 與 E2:

The other new certificates are more interesting. First up, we have the new ISRG Root X2, which has an ECDSA P-384 key instead of RSA, and is valid until 2040. Issued from that, we have two new intermediates, E1 and E2, which are both also ECDSA and are valid for 5 years.

主要的目的就是降低 TLS 連線時的 bandwidth,這次的設計預期可以降低將近 400 bytes:

While a 2048-bit RSA public key is about 256 bytes long, an ECDSA P-384 public key is only about 48 bytes. Similarly, the RSA signature will be another 256 bytes, while the ECDSA signature will only be 96 bytes. Factoring in some additional overhead, that’s a savings of nearly 400 bytes per certificate. Multiply that by how many certificates are in your chain, and how many connections you get in a day, and the bandwidth savings add up fast.

另外一個特別的修改是把名字改短 (把「Let's Encrypt Authority」拿掉),也是為了省傳輸的成本:

As an aside: since we’re concerned about certificate sizes, we’ve also taken a few other measures to save bytes in our new certificates. We’ve shortened their Subject Common Names from “Let’s Encrypt Authority X3” to just “R3”, relying on the previously-redundant Organization Name field to supply the words “Let’s Encrypt”. We’ve shortened their Authority Information Access Issuer and CRL Distribution Point URLs, and we’ve dropped their CPS and OCSP urls entirely. All of this adds up to another approximately 120 bytes of savings without making any substantive change to the useful information in the certificate.

這個部份讓我想到之前寫的「省頻寬的方法:終極版本...」這篇,裡面提到 AWS 自家的 SSL Certificate 太胖,改用 DigiCert 的反而可以省下不少錢 XDDD

另外也提到了這次 cross-sign 的部份是對 ECDSA Root Certificate 簽 (ISRG Root X2),而不是對 ECDSA Intermediate Certificate 簽 (E1 與 E2),主因是不希望多一次切換的轉移期:

In the end, we decided that providing the option of all-ECDSA chains was more important, and so opted to go with the first option, and cross-sign the ISRG Root X2 itself.

這算是蠻重要的進展,看起來各家 client 最近應該都會推出新版支援。

TLS 憑證的最長時效將從 825 天降到 398 天

在「Reducing TLS Certificate Lifespans to 398 Days」這邊看到才想起來沒寫這篇,這邊發生了一些有趣的事情...

提案是降低 TLS 憑證的有效時效,這件事情一開始是在 CA/B Forum 討論,但經過投票後沒有通過:「Ballot SC22 - Reduce Certificate Lifetimes (v2)」。

從投票記錄可以看到所有的憑證使用方 (包括了許多瀏覽器的廠商) 都贊同,但有大約 2/3 的憑證發行方都反對:

7 votes total including abstentions:

  • 7 Yes votes: Apple, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, 360
  • 0 No votes:
  • 0 Abstain:

33 votes total including abstentions

  • 11 Yes votes: Amazon, Buypass, Certigna (DHIMYOTIS), certSIGN, Sectigo (former Comodo CA), eMudhra, Kamu SM, Let’s Encrypt, Logius PKIoverheid, SHECA,
  • 20 No votes: Camerfirma, Certum (Asseco), CFCA, Chunghwa Telecom, Comsign, D-TRUST, DarkMatter, Entrust Datacard, Firmaprofesional, GDCA, GlobalSign, GoDaddy, Izenpe, Network Solutions, OATI, SECOM, SwissSign, TWCA, TrustCor, SecureTrust (former Trustwave)
  • 2 Abstain: HARICA, TurkTrust

然後幾個比較大的憑證使用方 (AppleGoogleMozilla) 在提案被否決後就決定放到自家的規則了:「Apple strong-arms entire CA industry into one-year certificate lifespans」。

從 2020/09/01 開始,如果發出來的憑證超過 398 天就當作是無效憑證,也就是 2020/08/31 是最後一天可以發有效期限為 825 天的憑證,會落在 2022/12/05 失效:

$ date --date='Sep 1 2020 GMT+0000 +825days'
Mon Dec  5 08:00:00 CST 2022

這三家搞下去,就等於是強制性讓這些 CA 到九月就不能賣兩年的憑證了 (雖然還沒看到 Microsoft),這些 CA 一定是在心裡幹爆... XD

OpenSSH 的三個進階用法:CA 架構、透過 Jump Server 連線、2FA

在「How to SSH Properly」這篇裡面講了三個 OpenSSH 的進階用法:CA 架構、透過 Jump Server 連線,以及 2FA 的設定。

之前蠻常看到使用 -o StrictHostKeyChecking=off 關閉檢查,但 OpenSSH 有支援 CA 架構,可以先產生出 Root CA,然後對 Host 的 Public Key 簽名,在連線的時候就可以確保連線沒有被調包 (通常是 MITM),但得設計一套機制,自動化機器生出來後的步驟。

另外一個可能的方式是 SSHFP,搭配 DNSSEC 也可以確認連線沒有被調包,不過這又牽扯到 DNS 的部份...

第二個提到的是 Jump Server (Bastion host),之前的作法是用 -A 把 authentication agent 帶過去再連進去,這邊則是教你怎麼下指令直接連線,而不需要先連到 Jump Server (但實際上底層是透過 Jump Server)。

第三個是 2FA,對於還是使用密碼登入的系統可以多一層保護。文章裡面講的是 TOTP 的方式 (就是現在還蠻常見的 app + 六碼動態數字)。


Let's Encrypt 在檢查 CAA 時出包

Let's Encrypt 發現在檢查 CAA 的程式碼有問題,發了說明:「2020.02.29 CAA Rechecking Bug」,以及預定的處理方式:「Revoking certain certificates on March 4」。

問題是當一個 certificate request 包含了 N 個 domain 時,本來的 CAA 檢查應該要對這 N 個檢查,但程式寫成只會抓一個,然後檢查了 N 次:

The bug: when a certificate request contained N domain names that needed CAA rechecking, Boulder would pick one domain name and check it N times. What this means in practice is that if a subscriber validated a domain name at time X, and the CAA records for that domain at time X allowed Let’s Encrypt issuance, that subscriber would be able to issue a certificate containing that domain name until X+30 days, even if someone later installed CAA records on that domain name that prohibit issuance by Let’s Encrypt.

2020/02/29 發現的,就程式碼的部屬時間,發現應該從去年 2019/07/25 開始就有這個 bug:

We confirmed the bug at 2020-02-29 03:08 UTC, and halted issuance at 03:10. We deployed a fix at 05:22 UTC and then re-enabled issuance.

Our preliminary investigation suggests the bug was introduced on 2019-07-25. We will conduct a more detailed investigation and provide a postmortem when it is complete.

然後決定要 revoke 這些可能會有問題的 SSL certificate,大約佔現有還有效的 SSL certificate 的 2.6%,大約三百萬筆:

Q: How many certificates are affected?
A: 2.6%. That is 3,048,289 currently-valid certificates are affected, out of ~116 million overall active Let’s Encrypt certificates. Of the affected certificates, about 1 million are duplicates of other affected certificates, in the sense of covering the same set of domain names.

在「Check whether a host's certificate needs replacement」這邊可以偵測線上使用的 SSL certificate 是否受到影響。

另外在「Download affected certificate serials for 2020.02.29 CAA Rechecking Incident」這邊可以抓到所有受到影響,預定要 revoke 的 SSL certificate 的序號。關於取得序號的方式,官方也有提供 CLI 的指令可以操作確認,對於有很多網域名稱需要確認的人可以用這組指令編寫程式判斷:

openssl s_client -connect -servername -showcerts </dev/null 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -text -noout | grep -A 1 Serial\ Number | tr -d :

照目前的描述,如果申請時只有一個 domain 應該是不會中這個問題,再來是最壞的情況大概會維持三個月 (網站主人沒管他,等到時間到了自動 renew)。

Safari 將會禁止長效憑證 (超過 398 天,大約十三個月)

在「Apple drops a bomb on long-life HTTPS certificates: Safari to snub new security certs valid for more than 13 months」這邊看到的,這次是 Safari 直接發難要幹掉長效憑證。

今年九月前發的憑證是照既有的協議,最長長度是 825 天 (大約 27 個月),但九月開始發的憑證,如果有效長度超過 398 天就會直接被 Safari 視為無效,所以大約是砍半,其他家瀏覽器不知道會不會跟進...

最早的時候可以直接買五年 (有印像是因為當年的 是我自己買的),後來好像降到三年,最近是兩年,看起來要變成一年了...

AWS 提供程式,可以掃出有哪些 RDS 的憑證需要更新

先前在「AWS 的 CA 更新 (CA-2019),將會影響與資料庫相關的服務」這邊提到了 AWSRDS 因為 Root Certificate 快要過期,需要更新到 CA-2019。

剛剛在 Twitter 上看到 Jeff Barr 提到了一個可以直接列出有哪些機器需要更新的工具:

程式放在 GitHub 上的 aws-samples/rds-ssl-update,另外看到一個有趣的授權條款,叫做 MIT-0 License,是 AWS 自己改的一個授權版本,拿掉了 MIT License 裡面的這段:

subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

也就是要求要引用授權條款的部份被拿掉,不過我還是比較喜歡 BSD license,尤其是 3-clause 的版本...