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。

新的 TLS 攻擊:Raccoon Attack

這次看到的是針對 TLS 實做上的問題產生的 Raccoon Attack,反正先取個名字就對了,原圖有點大張,設個 medium size 好了 XDDD:

Why is the attack called "Raccoon"?
Raccoon is not an acronym. Raccoons are just cute animals, and it is well past time that an attack will be named after them :)

先講影響的產品,首先是經常中槍的 F5,這次連 timing measurement 都不需要太準確就可以打穿:

In particular, several F5 products allow executing a special version of the attack, without the need for precise timing measurements.

OpenSSL 的部份因為從 1.0.2f 之後因為其他的 security issue 所以改善了實做方式,就不會受到這次的攻擊手法影響。

剛剛翻了一下 Ubuntu 上的的資料,看起來 16.04 (xenial) 上的 OpenSSL 就已經是 1.0.2g 了,所以目前只要是有在 Ubuntu 支援的版本應該都不受影響:

OpenSSL assigned the issue CVE-2020-1968. OpenSSL does use fresh DH keys per default since version 1.0.2f (which made SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE default as a response to CVE-2016-0701).

Firefox 直接拔了 DH 與 DHE 相關的 cipher suite,反正在這次攻擊手法出來前本來就已經計畫要拔掉:

Mozilla assigned the issue CVE-2020-12413. It has been solved by disabling DH and DHE cipher suites in Firefox (which was already planned before the Raccoon disclosure).


Microsoft assigned the issue CVE-2020-1596. Please refer to the Microsoft Security Response Center portal.

回到攻擊手法,這次的問題是因為 DH 相關的實做造成的問題。

TLS 要求去掉 premaster secret 裡開頭的 0,造成會因為開頭的 0 數量不同而實做上就不會是 constant time,所以有了一些 side channel information 可以用:

Our Raccoon attack exploits a TLS specification side channel; TLS 1.2 (and all previous versions) prescribes that all leading zero bytes in the premaster secret are stripped before used in further computations. Since the resulting premaster secret is used as an input into the key derivation function, which is based on hash functions with different timing profiles, precise timing measurements may enable an attacker to construct an oracle from a TLS server.

然後一層一層堆,能夠知道 premaster secret 開頭是不是 0 之後,接下來因為 server side 會重複使用同一組 premaster secret,所以可以當作一個 oracle,試著去計算出更後面的位數:

This oracle tells the attacker whether a computed premaster secret starts with zero or not. For example, the attacker could eavesdrop ga sent by the client, resend it to the server, and determine whether the resulting premaster secret starts with zero or not.

Learning one byte from a premaster secret would not help the attacker much. However, here the attack gets interesting. Imagine the attacker intercepted a ClientKeyExchange message containing the value ga. The attacker can now construct values related to ga and send them to the server in distinct TLS handshakes. More concretely, the attacker constructs values gri*ga, which lead to premaster secrets gri*b*gab. Based on the server timing behavior, the attacker can find values leading to premaster secrets starting with zero. In the end, this helps the attacker to construct a set of equations and use a solver for the Hidden Number Problem (HNP) to compute the original premaster secret established between the client and the server.

所以針對這個攻擊手法的解法就是用「新鮮的」premaster secret (像是完全不重複使用),然後保留開頭的 0,不需要去掉。而 TLS 1.3 在定義的時候把這兩件事情都做了,所以不會受到影響:

Is TLS 1.3 also affected?
No. In TLS 1.3, the leading zero bytes are preserved for DHE cipher suites (as well as for ECDHE ones) and keys should not be reused.

另外在這邊提到的 Hidden Number Problem (HNP) 也是個不熟悉的詞彙,網站上有提到論文,也就是「Hardness of computing the most significant bits of secret keys in Diffie-Hellman and related schemes」這篇:

Given an oracle Oα(x) that on input x computes the k most significant bits of (α * gx mod p) , find α mod p.


5 Eyes、9 Eyes 與 14 Eyes

{5,9,14} Eyes 是先前在其他地方看到的詞,後來在「Cutting Google out of your life」這邊在講 Google 的替代方案時又有提到,然後也有解釋:「Global Mass Surveillance - The Fourteen Eyes」。

這邊提到的 Eyes 起因是大多數國家對於監視自己公民都有法律限制,所以藉由與國外的情報單位「合作」,取得對自己國家公民的監視資訊 (即使各國之間有簽訂不監視其他國家公民),而這邊列出的 {5,9,14} Eyes 就是互相有簽訂合作的國家:

The UKUSA Agreement is an agreement between the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand to cooperatively collect, analyze, and share intelligence. Members of this group, known as the Five Eyes, focus on gathering and analyzing intelligence from different parts of the world. While Five Eyes countries have agreed to not spy on each other as adversaries, leaks by Snowden have revealed that some Five Eyes members monitor each other's citizens and share intelligence to avoid breaking domestic laws that prohibit them from spying on their own citizens. The Five Eyes alliance also cooperates with groups of third-party countries to share intelligence (forming the Nine Eyes and Fourteen Eyes); however, Five Eyes and third-party countries can and do spy on each other.

另外還有「Key Disclosure Law」這段,在講有哪些國家有法律可以強制個人交出金鑰。

回到本來提到的 degoogle 列表,裡面列出了很多替代的服務與軟體,其中服務的部份會列出所在地區是否在 {5,9,14} Eyes 的範圍內,以及發生過的爭議事件。

當作替代方案在看,至少可以把一些足跡從 Google 抽出來...

CloudFront 支援 TLS 1.3

看到 AWS 的公告,宣佈 CloudFront 支援 TLS 1.3:「Amazon CloudFront announces support for TLSv1.3 for viewer connections」。


TLSv1.3 is available today and enabled by default across all Amazon CloudFront security policies options. No additional changes are required to your CloudFront configuration to benefit from the security and performance improvements of TLSv1.3 for your viewer connections.

對使用者最大的差異應該還是改善 first byte 的時間 (主要是因為 handshake 時間縮短),這點 AWS 的人也有提到在內部測試時,美國區的改善情況:

In our own internal tests in the US region as an example, first byte latency for new negotiated connections saw reductions of up to 33% for TLSv1.3 compared to previous versions of TLS.

在 latency 更高的地區應該也會有大幅改善...

中國開始擋 ESNI 了...

這兩天陸陸續續都有一些新聞出來了,中國已經開始擋 ESNI 了:「China is now blocking all encrypted HTTPS traffic that uses TLS 1.3 and ESNI」。

ESNI (Encrypted SNI) 的重點就是在於把 TLS 裡 ClientHello 的 hostname 部分加密 (通常會需要配合 DNS-over-HTTPS 或是 DNS-over-TLS 的方式取得 key 相關的資料),這個 hostname 的部分是目前 TLS 連線裡少數可以被看到的明文,也因此對於 GFW 過濾資料很有用,而 ESNI 等於是把這個洞補上,這次直接擋掉應該是預料中的事情...

但就算不管中國的部分,ESNI 對於 priavcy 的幫助還是很大,基本上 ISP 只剩下 IP 資訊可以分析,如果是有 CDN 之類的服務在前面擋住的就更看不出來了 (i.e. 許多網站用同一個 IP address)。

Tor 在德國的 Relay 節點比重過高的問題

在「The German Problem with Tor」這邊提到了 Tor 在德國的 Relay 節點比重過高的問題,遠超過第二名的法國:

This is where we come to Germany, which has the highest amount of Tor relay capacity in the World at 167Gbps, in contrast France is in 2nd place with 64.5Gbps of capacity aka more than 100Gbps lower than Germany.

Welcome to Tor Metrics 這邊可以拉資料出來看,在「rs.html#aggregate/cc」這頁可以看到差距,現在德國的 Relay 是第一名,比重約 37.7%,法國則是第二名,但卻只佔了 16.7%。



Hacker News Daily 上看到的專案,針對現在很多演算法可以抓出照片上的人臉進行防禦:「Image "Cloaking" for Personal Privacy」。

這算是 Evasion 的應用,這個專案想要提供演算法,可以在照片上「隱形」,使得演算法偵測不到「人臉」,程式碼可以在 Shawn-Shan/fawkes 這邊翻到,可以看到是在 Python 上用 TensorFlowKeras 實做出來的。


Shawn Shan†, PhD Student
Emily Wenger†, PhD Student
Jiayun Zhang, Visiting Student
Huiying Li, PhD Student
Haitao Zheng, Professor
Ben Y. Zhao, Professor

† Project co-leaders and co-first authors

從名字上來看五個是華人,而且一路搜下來會發現掛在最後一位的 Ben Y. Zhao 教授在 Quora 上常常回答問題,而且這些問題 (與回答) 還蠻有趣的,可以自己搜看看...

前陣子爆出「不保留記錄的 VPN」保留了大量的客戶與連線資訊

前陣子 comparitech 發現了宣稱不保留記錄的 VPN 廠商 UFO VPNElasticsearch 伺服器沒有設定好,造成外部可以直接存取,然後發現裡面包含了大量記錄:「“Zero logs” VPN exposes millions of logs including user passwords, claims data is anonymous」,這篇文章的小標把重點先說完了:

UFO VPN exposed millions of log files about users of its service, including their account passwords and IP addresses, despite claiming that it keeps no logs.

目前還是建議在有能力的情況下都自己架,一般常見就是用 OpenVPN,但設定上會比較麻煩一些。如果要方便的話可以用 Openconnect VPN Server (ocserv) 架 server,然後在手機上可以直接用 Cisco 官方提供的用戶端接,像是 Cisco AnyConnect (iOS) 與 AnyConnect (Android),在桌機上一般則是用 OpenConnect 自家的軟體連接。

家裡有 HiNet 的網路的話,可以申請一個固定 IP (透過 PPPoE 的),然後用一台 Raspberry Pi 之類的設備架設。

倒不是說這些 VPN 廠商的服務不能用,只是你必須認知這些 VPN 是拿來繞過地區限制的,而不是為了安全性或是隱私,所以如果是人在外面使用網路,想要避免被商家或是外面的 ISP 看到流量內容,透過自己架設的 VPN 應該會好不少。

EU-US Privacy Shield 被歐盟法院拒絕

在「EU rejects US data sharing agreement over privacy concerns」這邊看到的新聞,引用自「EU rejects US data sharing agreement over privacy concerns」這邊的新聞報導。

歐盟最高法院的新聞稿則是在「The Court of Justice invalidates Decision 2016/1250 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Data Protection Shield」這邊可以看到,雖然 EU-US Privacy Shield 被推翻,但本來在 2010 年的框架仍然有效:

However, it considers that Commission Decision 2010/87 on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries is valid.


A final CJEU decision was published on 16 July 2020. The EU-US Privacy Shield for data sharing was struck down by the European Court of Justice on the grounds it did not provide adequate protections to EU citizens on government snooping.


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, SSL.com
  • 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