!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
There is a massive security incident this week where an Indian certificate authority used 4 as the private key they used to sign encrypted internet traffic with.
Knowing their secret key lets anyone forge certificates that they can use to snoop on or modify internet traffic.
All 8 of their private keys were under 255, so could be trivially guessed. These certificates were accepted by all major browsers and operating systems, as well as many programming languages and tools.
But, since nobody would expect an organization like that to have a one digit key, wouldn't that make it extremely hard to guess?
Half kidding here.
Not if you're brute forcing it.
I think it technically was not "brute forcing" (since it wasn't found by searching the entire key space), but specifically someone tried generating CA cert private keys from numbers 0-255, and surprisingly found a few.
So why did it take so long for someone to try it?
Kind of like how you don't expect to walk up to an atm, press 1234, and hope for a million dollars to spit out.
We don't know whether anyone tried it before April 2025, because that's when the vulnerable certificates were issued. If someone did try it before then, they would not find any certificates (as expected) and probably wouldn't even talk to anyone about it.
Ain’t no way I’m starting from 0 if the standard key is 256-bit
It’s just as arbitrary as any other number. You can pick at random, but starting with a dictionary attack of easy, non-random keys would probably be a better start.
I remember playing a game of dvd-deal or no deal, where you would pick random number from one to twenty and see if you won money. The people I was playing with were mad because I just started guessing 1, 2, 3, 4…
I told them statistically it was just as likely to be those numbers as anything else.
"Time to brute force this key, I guess I will go get some lun.... What do you mean it's already done? Who uses 4????"
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100
Security by obscurity is what it’s called in the industry, and yeah it’s not a good way to do it. Automation and scripts would make it trivial to guess.
It's kinda like locking your door by putting a wedge in the crack. Probably, no one is going to try to open your door anyways, and probably, even if they did no one is going to take 5 seconds to examine the door and figure it out
But if someone does, it's laughably easy to figure it out
Except this is internet and pretty much anybody on the planet could test the security of your doors.
I like the analogy but I think it doesn't really apply when it comes to devices that are connected to the internet.
I think their analogy is still good. Just add "...and your door opens onto Times Square."
That doesn't quite get the full scope, but it does imply the danger pretty well. Plus, if you add in "...Times Square of robots, and the robots are all thieves, and your most expensive possession is visibly sitting right inside, and..." it starts to get pretty unwieldy.
Well, someone did guess it so it's not that hard. The entropy was really low.
Nit: That that key doesn’t technically encrypt traffic, if I understand correctly. It’s used to verify the identify of a website. So someone with this private key can’t directly read internet traffic. They can set up a man-in-the-middle attack, but they’d also have to compromise DNS to pull it off.
It’s a little more complex than that. But if you want to encrypt, and you do want your site traffic encrypted, you use site certificate to give the client browser proof that you are who you say you are. You do this by establishing a chain of trust: “I got this proof that I am who I say I am from this major trusted certificate authority” you trust them and they trust me, so we’re all good. You’ve probably seen the warning that a site isn’t secure, and that’s because they let their certificate of trust expire.
This low entropy key means it’s trivial for me to fake that I have that major authority’s trust. The browser needs to be updated to no longer trust that authority. Until it does I can easily fake being anyone and say that compromised site vouches for me. I don’t even need to be a man in the middle, I just need to set up a way that your browser sends you to my fake server instead of the real one. Lots of ways to do that.
I just dont understand why they would do this? Putting so shitty key is like they wanted to make it as insecure as possible. Even if the ones responsible were criminally stupid, they still should have understood that this is like leaving the whole thing unlocked.
And for such critical thing. Imagine if this wasnt discovered like this but instead by some competent malicious actor that had resources to coordinate some large scale attack and kept it hidden until just the right moment when they can strike at everything.
I also dont understand how little outrage there even is about this, we were really close to huge catastrophe. Or maybe i have misunderstood the severity of what happened.
They are saying there were mistakes made with their key generation scripts:
We have done some preliminary assessment, there appears to be a flaw in the KGC script that was used on that specific day to create these ECC issuers. As for these ECC keys, our review of the KGC, assessment of the code and view of HSM keys so far indicate that a) a set of original ECC keys were created onboard as expected b) an approved deviation to our usual KGC to test a wrap/unwrap was introduced as these keys were meant for export for this instance c) a flaw in the code resulted in the second pair of keys being created onboard which were weaker d) these second pair of weaker keys were used by mistake to create the csr (because the key labels were similar) and signed by our root e) the CSR from these weaker keys were also sent over to Sectigo for cross signing (we verified the files sent over to Sectigo)
Source: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449#c11
Personally I'm still a little confused why it makes any difference that the keys were intended for export to their European and US operations
By "export" I think they mean export off of the hardware security module (HSM). Not export geographically.
There are two parts to this answer.
First, as many have pointed out, eMudhra as a trusted certificate authority has issued eight high-level certificates with a key length of onle 3-8 bits, when they should be 384 bits long. And yes, the smallest key was '4'.
But the other point is tha xkcd predicted using 4 as a random number, decades ago. It was supposed to be a joke.
xkcd also happened to release a comic about a "vulnerability in the number 3" the same day the eMudhra news broke.
That's not "happened to"; read the title text if you want to remove all reasonable doubt that it's a reference to it.
I think they italcized that word because it was sardonic.
Oh my god, I thought that was a recent meme someone made because of this debacle, didn't know it was an OG xkcd...
Because it was revealed that an actual TLS certificate used the number 4 as a private key.
Not just a tls certificate, A root CA certificate trusted by pretty much everything
I'm glad I use good ol' 12345!
Amazing. I have the same combination on my luggage.
I'm surrounded by Assholes!
because 42 would have been too obvious.
You may find that answr from another community helpful: https://feddit.online/comment/10016475
That was a really good answer actually
Aw, thanks
An organization trusted with the security of potentially billions of people essentially used the password "4" among other bad choices.
You can read the technical explanation here: https://emudhra.we-have-a-problem.com/
It's hard to properly describe how big a fuckup this is. All I will say is that all the coverage I've seen is underselling the potential for harm. There's nothing you can do except update your shit, pray that everyone in the upstream supply chain of every service you use has updated their shit, and take comfort in the fact that there are no proven wild exploits out there (yet).
I tried to read the comments, but I couldn't get in:
In my defense, the comm is No Stupid Questions, not No Stupid Comments.
Well ..... this has taken me down am SSL cryptographic rabbit hole.
"Lemmeme" tho. 'twas RIGHT there.