←back to thread

548 points mnot | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.407s | source
Show context
5ersi ◴[] No.38112218[source]
If you are concerned by this proposals, then you should check out current CAs trusted by your browser - all those CAs can issue rogue certificates trusted by your browser, that can be used in MITM attack.

For example, CAs present in Firefox, that might give you pause: Beijing Certificate Authority, China Financial CA, Guang Dong CA

The CA system in browsers is inherently broken and it allows state actors to MITM you and see all your traffic if they: 1. have ability to capture IP traffic (requires cooperation with ISP) 2. have ability to generate rogue certificate via cooperation with CA

replies(5): >>38112296 #>>38112304 #>>38112316 #>>38112317 #>>38112423 #
gchamonlive ◴[] No.38112316[source]
It's not like Beijing CA can issue a rogue certifcate and suddenly a malicious actor would be able to decrypt all your internet traffic. You would have to connect to a service that uses those certificates in the first place.

An interesting experiment would be to log all certificates used by the sites you normally use, say for a month, and then look at the list for anything shady. I have no ideia if an extension exists that would allow such and experiment, but the resulting list would be much more useful.

replies(2): >>38112438 #>>38112465 #
lambdaone ◴[] No.38112438[source]
No, that's not needed at all. If the malicious actor can man-in-the-middle traffic to victimsite.com (say using a BGP hijack), they can serve HTTPS traffic to the end user from their MITM server, secured with a certificate issued to "victimsite.com" that is issued by their own CA, and the MITM can then in turn communicate to the real victimsite.com using HTTPS secured by the real site's certificate, signed by its own CA.

Now, there are CAA DNS records, which serve the purpose of restricting the CAs that can sign a particular domain, which would of course be ignored by the malicious actor, but _could_ be checked by the end user's browser. But to the best of my knowledge, no browser does that.

replies(2): >>38112722 #>>38120677 #
1. ajsnigrutin ◴[] No.38112722[source]
This will get noticed in a matter of seconds.

But if your own government tells your own isp to reroute just your traffic over some MITM proxy, it's only you there to notice, and most probably, you won't.

replies(1): >>38113638 #
2. lambdaone ◴[] No.38113638[source]
In an ideal world, yes, they would by shut down in seconds. Yet BGP hijacks still occur in the real world; here's one from last month: https://slowmist.medium.com/analysis-of-balancer-bgp-hijacki...

And you're certainly right about government-mandated traffic hijacking.