The Forrester Wave™: Digital Risk Monitoring, Q3 2016 named RiskIQ a leader in Digital Risk Monitoring, and gave RiskIQ top ranking for Current Offering & Data Coverage.
Download the Report
Get vast internet data sets and advanced analytics to hunt digital threats and defend your company’s digital footprint.
Get RiskIQ Community Edition
Get the Analyst Report
Join Yonathan Klijnsma, threat researcher, in this webinar on Aug. 8 at 9:00 a.m. PT/12:00 p.m. ET
Save Your Seat
November 1, 2016, Arian Evans
Mozilla, the world’s second most popular browser, announced an important security decision last week to distrust a range of bad SSL certificates issued by Certificate Authorities (CAs) WoSign and Startcom, citing “technical and management failures”.
In a nutshell, the security industry agreed several years ago that SHA-1 is becoming risky to use for SSL certificates, and set a deadline of January 1st, 2016 for the industry to stop issuing SSL certs that use it. WoSign, which has acquired full ownership of Startcom, continued to issue SHA-1 SSL certs to customers, made to look valid by back-dating them, i.e., faking the date of issuance. There are several potential impacts from issuing weak certificates discussed in our technical blog, but the main business impact will be alarming “Secure Connection Failed” browser warnings when people visit your website. These certificates also present the risk for Man in the Middle attacks on users’ sessions and more.
Why would two Chinese CAs backdate certificates with weak ciphers, and then repeatedly deny it? Is this a shady operation, or simply a mistake? Keep in mind that it took Apple and Mozilla essentially saying they would put WoSign and Startcom out of business for them to finally respond to the claims of wrongdoing (we’ll let you draw your own conclusions).
Once WoSign was forced to come clean, the answer provided isn’t much of answer. To read it, jump to “9. Issue S: Backdated SHA-1 Certs (January 2016)” inside the official PDF response (if you are comfortable opening a Chinese PDF). The number of mistakes and poor judgment calls made at WoSign disclosed in this advisory, make it look like Hanlon’s Razor has been in effect there for some time.
If your organization is using SSL certificates from either of these CAs, you could be a victim of this. In fact, RiskIQ’s current global index shows 762,649 websites using Certificates belonging to the 2 CAs. If you are a RiskIQ Enterprise Digital Footprint customer, log in and go to your Insights Dashboard to review usage of WoSign and Startcom SSL Certificates.
Fig-1 For specifics on analyzing certificates, visit our technical blog
If you are unsure if—or where—you are running WoSign or Startcom SSL Certificates, you are certainly not alone. As businesses expand into digital channels, the challenge of finding and managing an increasingly decentralized attack surface grows exponentially. To demonstrate this risk, RiskIQ performed a quantitative assessment of threats facing the top 35 banks and financial service firms as a result of decentralized web and mobile attack surface in April 2015. The data we collected confirms this challenge:
Fig-2 RiskIQ’s Enterprise Digital Footprint inventories all the SSL certs in your environment
Most organizations have challenges managing their ever-expanding digital footprint and resultant Internet-exposed attack surface and struggle to find risk issues like invalid and potentially exploitable SSL Certificates. RiskIQ’s Enterprise Digital Footprint was purpose built to solve this problem.