Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
MITM on HTTPS traffic in Kazakhstan (bugzilla.mozilla.org)
1336 points by bzbarsky 36 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 453 comments



Hijacking the comment for better visibility. After getting some backlash, the government has already backed down. They claim that installing the certificate is entirely voluntary.

https://rus.azattyq.org/a/30064788.html

They have been talking about this stuff for some years, though. It will get implemented at some point. I have a feeling it was one of their "test trials": can we boil the frog yet, or do we have to heat the water up a bit more?


Are you sure that's really them backing down, and not just a way to obfuscate the issue? Technically yes, installing the certificate is voluntary; it's just that if you don't install it you won't be able to access the internet anymore when the government starts MITMing your connections.


Let's say they make it mandatory. Would it be possible for a group of people with one having unfettered access because, say, they cross the border all the time to a place that has full Internet, and they use wget to tar/gzip entire sites, places this on a server in a city, and provides access with a self-signed cert that everyone involved with knows about.

Or failing that, some kind of digital dead drop with the files. If this could be updated a few times a week, that's better than not having access to material that you don't want the government to know about. It has to be possible.


Folks should also periodically get fingerprints of sites they often use and keep logs of them, so that you might notice if something changes.

example:

    openssl s_client -servername www.paypal.com -connect www.paypal.com:443 < /dev/null 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -fingerprint -noout -in /dev/stdin                                                 
    SHA1 Fingerprint=E8:20:7A:27:8C:BE:D4:D9:7F:44:32:89:E7:6B:13:DD:CE:58:50:F6
Perhaps put all the sites you visit into a text file and loop through them into a date based file or append with date stamps. If enough people did this, you could probably even spot when an entire region is doing something shady or a company was potentially compromised.



They are not backing down, they just saying meaningless words. My wife phone is MITMed right now and she can't open facebook, for example. How is it voluntary?


A fellow from Kazakhstan here.

Banning this certificate or at least warning the users against using it WILL help a lot.

Each authoritarian regime is authoritarian in its own way. Kazakhstan doesn't have a very strong regime, especially since the first president resigned earlier this year. When people protest strongly against something, the government usually backs down. For example, a couple of years ago the government withdrew their plans of lending lands to foreign governments after backlash from ordinary people. If Kazakhs knew about the implications of installing this certificate, they would have been on the streets already.

If Firefox, Chrome and/or Safari block this certificate, the people will show their dissatisfaction and the law will be revoked.

Sometimes the people in authoritarian countries need a little bit of support from organizations to fight for their rights. I really hope the browser organizations would help us here.


Please do post this feedback in the bugzilla bug and the linked discussion thread; this is the kind of thing that helps developers make a more informed decision rather than just speculating on what would help people more.


I wished that all individuals in all countries would have such an attitude towards their governments.


I totally agree with your point. Blocking this certificate in major browsers or warning users would be of great use.

But there is a minor remark I have to make here. I'm sure you were talking about citizens of Kazakhstan, when you used the word "Kazakhs". The word "Kazakh" actually denotes an ethnicity, not a citizenship. And although Kazakhs are predominant ethnicity in Kazakhstan (~65% of the population), there are many others, and it's incorrect to call them Kazakhs.

Wikipedia suggests "Kazakhstani" as a English term for Kazakhstan citizens. I also saw other people using the word "Kazakhstanians". Maybe one of these two would be a better choice than "Kazakhs".


While technically this is true, it is rare (and sounds nerdy) for English speakers who are familiar with Kazakhstan to actually use the word "Kazakhstani" or especially "Kazakhstanian." The word "Kazakh" is used informally to refer to natives or citizens of Kazakhstan when the meaning is clear from the context. Similar to how "Americans" (which could arguably refer to any North or South American) is used instead of "U.S. citizens." Or "Saudis." At least that was my experience from living in K'stan for 4 years in the '90's.


I didn't know that. I'm not a native English speaker. If this is actually an established way to informally address Kazakhstan citizens in English, then it's OK, I do not object.

But I'm still skeptical about it. I think in my own speech I'll stick to "Kazakhstanian" (despite the word "Kazakh" is so much easier to type). Because I'm just used to make distinction between words "Kazakh" and "Kazakhstanian" when I speak Kazakh and Russian languages (most popular ones in Kazakhstan).


But he actually could have been talking primarily about Kazakhs in Kazakhstan, so nothing wrong there.


> If Firefox, Chrome and/or Safari block this certificate

For users who are already subject to the MITM, when they try to download a new version of their browser, couldn't the ISP simply serve them a slightly modified version of the new/updated Chrome/Firefox binary which does not blacklist their certificate? It would require a high level of technical expertise, but what could prevent this sort of thing?


>...but what could prevent this sort of thing?

If it's on Windows, probably the digital signature[0] of the installer bundle will flag for invalid/unknown signature. For nix you could verify checksums but for Apple, if it's not in the store, I think it's nigh* impossible to do.

[0] - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/packaging/sign-...


What is the extent of the MITM attack that you can do with this certificate? Can you intercept all https traffic?


If a user trusts this root CA (~ "installs the certificate") then someone who controls the root can now make their MITM look like the real deal, because it's trusted. After all you've said you trust them. Whether you _should_ trust the authoritarian government of Kazakhstan is a policy issue.

On its own the root does not magically intercept the traffic, so Kazakh ISPs will need to do a bunch of (potentially quite expensive) work to actually MITM traffic for the Kazakh government, but with the root once that work is done it doesn't get flagged as a problem.

Because this exact same strategy (root that is not trustworthy is installed) is used in corporate setups to do anti-exfiltration, porn filtering and dozens of other things of dubious value, browsers are designed to let you, or the computer's administrator, choose to trust root CAs and indeed lots of counter-measures that protect ordinary users from bad guys are deliberately _disabled_ in the scenario where you've told it to trust some third party. You know best.

If you imagine a hypothetical system which just doesn't trust this root, say somebody has a Raspberry Pi they smuggled across the border, or more prosaically, they just said "No" and refused to install the root certificate -- such a system just will treat the MITM as an error, your secure web browsing won't work because it can't make a secure connection.

Or contrariwise, suppose you install the root in an otherwise ordinary PC in New York connected to AT&T, it will have no effect because the Kazakh government obviously isn't in New York MITMing your connections to other stuff.


How do I know that NSA does not have one root certificate pre-installed in my browser?


Review and compile the browser yourself, or just trust that someone would have found it by now and trust that your browser vendor knows that and would never do it in the first place unless they wanted to kill their browser instantly


The NSA doesn't need a root certificate installed on your computer if they already have the private keys to the root and/or intermediate CA providers.


Yes, having a root CA certificate like this installed in a client allows the certificate issuer (so in this case KZ government and anything they authorize ISPs to do) to impersonate any and every other domain. So yes, ALL https traffic to and from that client to be subject to intercept.


Why does such a certificate exist in the first place?


It exists to intercept https and potentially other TLS traffic. It exists because everybody can make such a certificate. I made such a CA certificate for my personal use, not to MITM myself, but to issue certificates for some internal services that are out of scope of letsencrypt. Every major desktop OS comes with tools that let you make a CA certificate, Windows does, macos does, linux distro usually ship openssl/gnutls/nss tools (as installable packages).

The challenge is not to make it but to get it trusted by OS and software. The Kazakhstan government solved it by having the ISPs just tell people to install the thing themselves into each and every device you own.

Why does the government want this? To snoop on people. Usually framed as "We need to be able to fight terrorists, criminals and/or foreign enemies who 'abuse' encryption to hide their malicious activities". Tho, a lot of times the government will say all people are potential terrorists, and you just don't know if they are until you start snooping on them.

It's not only a thing with just authoritarian regimes, either. Australia passed a law which basically forces Australian companies and citizens to add backdoors in any products using end-to-end encryption (thereby effectively disabling end-to-end encryption) so the government can read communication if they want to.

The UK has a law ("snooper charter") that requires companies to "remove or disable" encryption when the government shows up with a warrant.

The US similarly are looking into end-to-end encryption busting legislation. And they already compelled companies to effective disable encryption systems, e.g. when a judge ordered lavabit (then the email provider Edward Snowden used) to hand over their encryption keys and install a government provided device capable of logging all traffic. And let's not forget that for a long time US law classified strong encryption as a "weapon" which meant you could not export encryption easily. Or the NSA e.g. pushing their backdoor encryption-busting PRNG (Dual_EC_DRBG) and weak encryption schemes (Speck, Simon).

German politicians recently started demanding end-to-end encryption busting legislation too, except they said "we do not want to make encryption weaker or insecure, we just want that the companies give us the plaintext data", which once more shows that they didn't thought it was necessary to do the most basic research into how this stuff works before talking.


It seems like this is material movement toward actual authoritarianism to me.


Anybody can make one.

You can make one on your own computer, give the result to your friends, tell them to connect through you as a proxy, and intercept everything. The tricky part is that browsers are hard coded with a list of a few trusted root certificates to trust. In order for the home baked certificate you just made to do any good, people have to explicitly install it and mark it as trusted. That means you have to distribute your newly minted root certificate and get every end point device to accept it manually.

That's what's so sinister about Kazakhstan's approach: by issuing a governmental mandate for citizens install the certificate they generated, and restricting their internet if they don't, they are effectively bypassing the Internet's current trust system entirely and granting themselves cart-blanche access to all their traffic.


Because it takes nothing but an openssl installation (or similar) to generate one?

Anyone can control a (root) certificate - the problem is getting others to trust it. Legitimate use cases might be: You want to intercept (and decrypt) traffic going from your local computer to SSL/TLS endpoints (affects only you) for example. Less clear cut / nice example: Company wants to read your traffic and therefor deploys a cert like this on your computer, now can snoop on anything you do, https or not.


Anyone can make one. You can make one if you want to. Getting others to trust and install it is the key - and in this case it is government mandated.

It is not uncommon to see this in companies that (for security, regulatory, or other reasons) need to monitor traffic in and out of their network. They have all the company provided computing devices include their self-generated CA certificate and force all HTTPS traffic through a MitMing proxy in order to do the scanning.


Yes


In the meanwhile consider using Tor https://www.torproject.org . It has different transports transport plugins available if that will make the traffic look like regular traffic and not Tor traffic.


Tor has been blocked here for the last 10 (or so) years. You have to find and add a couple of bridge servers to get it working, until they get blocked as well, of course.


This is correct, but there are a couple of caveats.

As a reference - relays https://metrics.torproject.org/userstats-relay-country.html?... - bridges https://metrics.torproject.org/userstats-bridge-combined.htm... - ticket https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/20348

Noteworthy "I messaged the user my unpublished obfs4 bridge whose OR port is firewalled and the bridge is working so far". Also, the boxes don't seem to perform a good job in inspecting for protocols tunnelled over HTTPS (https://gitweb.torproject.org/pluggable-transports/httpsprox...).


I really don't like the idea that some third forces would interfere with internal politics of my country. Browser should work according to technical standards, not according to what US citizens decided to be good or bad. If Firefox wants to forbid locally installed roots, I'm all for it, but implement it for everyone.

That said, I don't see how government would step back. People are uninformed and generally passive, they wouldn't care enough. So, sadly, it might be the only way to push back that decision. But I still don't like it.


Privacy is not 'what US citizens decided to be good', it's fundamental human right.

I'm not a Kazakh, I'm Russian, but our politics has a lot in common. And I would say, third forces interfering with politics is not as bad (if at all), as local governments interfering with people's privacy.


Encryption is political. The technical standards around HTTPS are politically motivated. The push for HTTPS everywhere, de-facto required TLS in HTTP/2, eSNI & DoH, were largely a response to the US government's mass surveillance.

However, who makes these changes is interesting. It happened to be mostly developers in Five Eyes' countries acting against Five Eyes.

Do we need to have elected representatives in browser vendors and encryption standards bodies? Or given that the elected representatives are for mass surveillance, would that be any good?


I disagree that encryption is political. Fundamentally, it's a privacy and security mechanism and on its own it's no more political than locks, safes, paper shredders or curtains.

Because of the complex, un-intuitive nature of encryption, it mixed particularly badly with politics, and we're still suffering from the fallout of that now. (crypto wars 1)

Firefox and other application vendors who use those standards do end up being unavoidably slightly closer to politics (as demonstrated in this particular issue now), but I think Mozilla would do well to keep their goal simple - Protect user privacy where they can and explain to users when they can't.

A notice to the user like "You are using a key known to allow access to third parties" is just a fact and no more political than "the site you are visiting uses weak crypto standards" or similar.


Privacy is political.


Privacy is apolitical. In fact, it is built into the very fabric of how the world works.

Does the grain of sand on a beach in Japan know whether or not I've just sat down in America? No.

Does the merging black hole/neutron star somewhere in the universe know that it will have consequences for small bags of carbon and water somewhere in the universe? No it does not.

Do you know what your child is actually thinking when you harangue them for the umpteenth time? No, you don't.

Lack of privacy/privileged access to information has always been the byproduct of active human effort. The natural state of things, is for information to only effect it's immediate locality. I.e. privacy.

Lack of privacy; therefore is the political subject. Subtle difference, granted, but that subtlety belies the consequences of letting things get out of hand.

Excessive "awareness" is a problem. There are those that relish the thought for the power such systems confer; they chant

"I can make you safer!" "You lose nothing!" "There is no danger in this!" "It is just the sacrifice a Good Citizen should be expected to make for the Greater Good!"

However, once the check is written, does the government ever relinquish it's right to privacy?

Nay. National Security. Just trust us.

Never mind that the assertion that led to the sacrifice of the initial liberty was that there were those amongst us who couldn't be trusted.

Nay, sir, I agree with GP. The breach of fundamental rights (or imposition of obligation) is the matter of politics, and very infrequently do I see any credible case made where something as fundamental as breaking the confidentiality of the most efficient means of communication anything but a power grab, and eventual tool of tyrannical oppression.


Consistently applied standards are good. But if a developer change can interfere with a country's politics, it's because political actors have coopted the developers' work for leverage in their own system. Dev teams like Mozilla's are under no obligation to give a stable platform to anybody's political goals.


I also think there is a risk that Mozilla if blocks the government certs then that would turn all Firefox users in the country into criminals. I'm all for security and privacy, but it is a rough choice between protecting users from surveillance by their authoritarian government or trying to make sure users can follow local laws.


I don't think that we are there. There are no laws to circumvent the bans and in fact a lot of users are using VPNs. The only measures our government is doing is technical ones: ban websites, install DPI, now they apparently plan to MITM on some (or all) connections. But I've never heard about anyone convinced of circumventing those measures. In fact I'm not aware that any similar law exists.

We could be there one day. But now the fight is purely technical. I'm, personally, going to set up dedicated server on online.net and setup proper and fast VPN for all my relatives and friends. I hope that other people would do the same.


Couldn't agree more.


What is interesting is that some local internet providers in Kazakhstan used to inject their own ads into http websites their users visit. I wonder if they will start doing the same with https now.

I noticed this behaviour last February with Kazakhtelecom (telecom.kz) internet provider. When I opened an http website in my browser and started clicking randomly on the parts of the page which are usually not clickable, sometimes such click would open a pop-up window with ads. Those pop-ups did also open sometimes, when I clicked on links of the page. It was unusual, because I used the same websites just a few days before that from Russia and nothing like that happened.

To figure out what's going on I opened the same webpage through proxy and compared it with localy opened one. Shell command for that was something like:

  diff <(curl http://website) <(proxychains curl http://website)
And the only difference was that directly downloaded webpage contained a reference to some suspicious script in a place, where the proxied one had a reference to a google analytics script. I reproduced this behaviour with multiple websites from two different homes, on two different laptops (Linux and Windows). So this is unlikely to be a malware in my router, and I'm pretty sure it's not in my laptop.

I'll be back in Kazakhstan in 3-5 days, I'll try to reproduce this once again.


This is so bad. I'm from India and at my parents place we have the government run internet provider. They MITM and inject advertisements all the time showing annoying popups whenever you open an http link. I don't know how this is legal even.


> I don't know how this is legal even.

Legality is secondary when you are punching up in a 3rd world country. (I am from India)


I'm in the US and I've caught my ISP doing MITM exploits over http (not https... so far). It's global and regular folks have absolutely no chance of knowing what is going on. Needs to be criminalized for any hope of resolution.


Comcast has even published an informational RFC describing how to inject crap into HTTP requests:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108


1. Please stop self-generalizing. This only leads to hopelessness, which is unwarrented since there's a huge amount of Internet-related activism in India, even more than the Western countries.

2. Plese stop using the label "Third-world". You are your own "first-world". There's better labels to describe yourself, namely "developing".


Well third world just means the country did not align with the US or USSR during the cold war. Though the concept has kinda changed meaning lately.


> government run

> how this is legal even.

The government writes and enforces the laws. They'll never self incriminate.


This is a false assumption. Governments (executive branch) can be prosecuted for illegal behavior.


Your statement only applies to the subset of countries where there is judicial independence.


Which is true in case of India


The present judiciary in India lacks spine, on one hand they say privacy is fundamental right on other hand they drag their feet to stop the project aadhaar which required collecting biometric dataset on whole population.

And their defense claims US has SSN which is equivalent of Aadhaar why anyone can see ludicrous

And still Aadhar requirement is not removed for filing income tax return (which results in massive penalities)


On paper


Use a VPN and they won't be able to MITM or inject advertisements.


Which provider is this? MTNL or BSNL?


Comcast used to do this to me about 6 or 7 years ago to tell me, or someone, about torrent use on the connection and something or other about copyright infringement. They'd inject their messages into the html of websites and you'd have to dismiss them to continue to use the site. Not their site. All sites.


Ok, I begin to understand the idea behind HTTPS everywhere..


I've noticed Airtel doing something similar in India but to inform of approaching bill dates.


> What is interesting is that some local internet providers in Kazakhstan used to inject their own ads into http websites their users visit.

Several ISPs (including some big national players, not smaller local/struggling/other ISPs) trialled that sort of thing in the UK in the mid/late 00s but there was a big enough ruckus about it that they stopped.

The really egregious thing about what some of them were doing is that they replaced existing ads so were basically trying to take money of the sites (they were at the same time also trying to get sites to pay or be considered "low priority" traffic so were trying to tripple-dip: get paid by their primary consumer, get paid by the sites, and take the sites' ad money).

It doesn't surprise me that it is actively happening in places there is less choice (so "voting with your feet" is not an option for telling ISPs what you think) or public outcry is less effective (or drowned out by more pressing issues the area might have).


I had ads injected by some European and UK ISPs on my own website. I pushed me to finally get LetsEncrypt implemented and switch everything over to https.


I wonder if they also proxy stuff like the Google endpoints where chrome does key pinning, or if they whitelist those. I imagine other large systems like those of facebook (when using the app) and Apple are actively remembering what the keys are supposed to look like. That would mean that even a custom CA wouldn't allow carte blanche MITM.


Chrome will disable key pinning for CAs that are user installed rather than system provided (to support companies/schools who want to MITM for slightly less draconian reasons).

I do wonder if Chrome will go to requiring CAs for this purpose be deployed via something more “enterprise” (e.g. custom extensions on Windows need to deployed via group policy now).


AFAIK, Chrome on Windows doesn’t manage root certificates, it just utilises Windows’ own cert store (certmgr).


I think you misunderstood the parent comment :)

Regardless of where the cert store is, it came with some CA certs "in the box". Pinning applies to these CAs. Any CA's added by the end user (aka person at the keyboard, or enterprise admins, etc) bypass pinning.

For better or worse, bypassing of pinning is required in some enterprise scenarios to inspect traffic leaving the network. e.g. Is someone attaching all our customer data to a email in gmail? To know that, I need to MITM mail.google.com.

Sadly, this mechanism does get abused :(


”Any CA's added by the end user (aka person at the keyboard, or enterprise admins, etc) bypass pinning.”

But how would Chrome know if a root cert from Windows’ cert store was added by the user or not? They would all be located in the ”Trusted Root Certification Authorities” container.


Yeah, no. This is Windows.

"The" Trusted Root Certification Authorities store isn't a real thing, it's just a view onto a bunch of different stores that are actually separate, including a local machine store and per-user stores plus of course stores added by your membership of a domain or other grouping.

So Chrome gets to distinguish between certificates that Microsoft added and the ones added by Group Policy or whatever else to your system.


Oh! I should’ve known it was all stored in the registry. As you say, this is Windows after all. Found some MS docs that look relevant: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/win32/seccrypto/sys...


Hey there!

I had a similar experience with my ISP in Canada. Infact, I did a talk on how I worked out what was going on from a technology perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YeaYIPM-QI

If you want to conduct some testing, I'd be more than happy to help.


Dumb question as I don't understand this well.

If I visit https://gmail.com, I expect all traffic to be encrypted because my browser checks that gmail is indeed using encrypted connection. How is this getting intruded upon?

More importantly, suppose I checkin to a hotel in USA as I usually do and use the hotel's wifi. Would they be able to intrude into my connection to https://gmail.com?

Could someone please give me some clarity on this.


> How is this getting intruded upon?

The connection is still encrypted the whole purpose of certificates is to verify with WHO you are connected with. In the Kazakhstan case the government by installing a root certificate has the ability to impersonate gmail.

> More importantly, suppose I checkin to a hotel in USA as I usually do and use the hotel's wifi. Would they be able to intrude into my connection to https://gmail.com?

If the site you visit is over https you can be relatively certain that you are indeed establishing an encrypted connection with the domain owner. If it's plain http anyone sniffing in the same wifi can see and mess with your traffic


Be careful.


I find the social aspect of this interesting. Us "smart tech people" have been pushing https everywhere for a few years now as a way of protecting internet privacy "for the masses".

And now the government found a very simple non-technical workaround. Send a message to everyone requiring a government root CA with an easy install, or their internet won't work.

Now "us techies" have to find a new technical solution to a very social problem.

It never ends. :(


But we are in a better place than before. Without HTTPS everywhere and governments needing to ask people to install new root certs, we would not have learned about this Kazakhstan MITM issue.


No. we just feel better because it just sounds so obviously reasonable doesn't it?

Kazakhstan's low-tech approach is just that, low-tech and low-effort. They could have used tons of vectors besides simply saying "install this cert."

A tiny shred of effort would have been to package an "updater" that did the install without explicitly saying that's what it was for. Or better yet: Kazakhstan is committed to a greener more ecologically friendly future! All tax documentation will go paperless! Just use the provided USB Key to access your documents in electronic format!

A small morsel of effort would be to force it on OS vendors through regulation/licensing/threats/money for localized copies. A good deal of effort would hijack CRLs, pinnings, et al while demanding/sneaking the private keys of the CAs.

Public Key Infrastructure is fucking pointless when the infrastructure is precisely what you can't trust.


No, it's not pointless. This attack was detectable because of PKI. Without it the attack would not have been detectable.

Being imperfect is different than being pointless. Even if you developed the perfect algorithm for global security infrastructure, the Kazakhstan government could still just break down your door and implant the backdoor into your hardware if they wanted. So by your logic should we just forget about this encryption stuff and just do everything in plain text again?


> Being imperfect is different than being pointless.

In particular, we'd see a lot more places than Kazakhstan do this if good countermeasures weren't in place...


An implant is not necessary. Intel ME is embedded with the CPU and has access to everything.


Intel ME is indeed scary stuff, but I think you need to provide stronger evidence if you want to convince us that governments can snoop on anyone anywhere just because of ME.


We still would have easily found out had any of these methods been employed; any uncompromised machines still left in the country when they flipped the switch would start getting TLS warnings.

They could, of course, avoid spying on uncompromised machines to avoid detection, but then anyone practicing good security hygiene would be automatically left unaffected by the government spy program. Plus there'd still be the possibility of detecting malware through other means (malware on client machines is far easier to detect than MITM of unencrypted communications). Not to mention how much more difficult all this would be than simply MITMing unencrypted traffic.

The situation with HTTPS is significantly improved.


> Public Key Infrastructure is fucking pointless when the infrastructure is precisely what you can't trust.

This seems a cynical and lazy evaluation of the situation. No solution is perfect, trade offs must be made everywhere. With the right precautions the average person can have his/her communications encrypted. This is a much better situation than the one we were on before.


How would they sneak the private keys from e.g. Digicert/Geotrust/ISRG?


And there would be no point in doing so anyway.

Chrome, etc., require that certificates which descend from publicly trusted roots have their certificates published in certificate transparency logs. Someone would quickly notice bogus certs being issued and the associated root would get blacklisted.


This is why certificate transparency is required now - it means that we no longer need to trust the CAs to tell us when they’ve issued an unconstrained intermediate or cross signed a root. Previously it was essentially luck that led to CA malfeasance being detected.

Especially in the post-finally-ending Symantec world the CAs understand that issuing any such cert is likely to very quickly end their business in most other countries.

I feel the real problem kz is going to have is that they have now demonstrated that they will abuse having a root cert, so there is no way any root stores will let them in in future. I imagine they’d even have difficulty getting any of the other roots to issue certs for them (managed sub-ca I think? I forget terminology)


Yep - without HTTPS everywhere, governments would have been silently able to snoop on Internet traffic without anyone knowing.


Sarcasm? Not sure.

But all a government has to do is embed within the endpoint, post-decryption. "Or else."


It is a valid point, it becomes much more obvious that you're snooping if you're trying to MITM. If you weren't snooping, you wouldn't bother trying.


”all a government has to do is embed within the endpoint”

That’s a pretty high bar to clear though.


Not really. NSA requests are backed by LE either directly or... extortion style. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p/


Allright. But they didn’t do it for all ~300M citizens though, did they?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

They did it to everyone whose traffic transited ATT's backbone


I haven’t immersed myself into the details of the Room 641A scandal, but it does indeed sound awful. I do not approve of the operations of NSA/Five Eyes.

But let my re-phrase my question like this: Do we have any evidence that NSA can perform MITM on TLS 1.3? Using a federal US CA would be one way, tricking a CA to issue fraudulent leaf certificates would be another, but as established elsewhere in this thread, both those ways are quite noisy. Attacking the endpoint is another way, but once Mallory does that, all bets are off.


Given it's already happened in the US, I don't think it's high enough.


This is exactly what Carnivore and PRISM were


And how would Carnivore/PRISM strip off the TLS encryption?


Not only that but they can happily MITM HTTPS as well. Not all the HTTPS sites use certificate pinning or HSTS.


It's a tough problem because certificate pinning kills a lot of legitimate use patterns; it's not something I'd like to see being the default everywhere.


Yes but this is how many companies protect their HTTPS traffic (including one financial institution I work for).


What root cert would they us for that?


The government of my country has at least one certificate that's trusted by Mozilla (and I guess Chrome and Windows too) by default.


It won't stay trusted if it is actively used for MITM attacks. At least that's the idea.



You mean CA? There are many options depending on which agency and which target you are talking about. They have few options from stealing a CA from a legitimate CA user if the want anonymity or use one that is built in to your browsers or systems somebody else already pointed out in the thread.


Oh I agree 100%. It just makes me sad that governments keep trying to spy and we have to keep coming up with new technology to make that harder.


It's not a technology problem, it's a social one. If a society values it's privacy enough then it will change.

The real issue is how abstract the consequences of loss of privacy are. It requires people to actually think beyond "I've got nothing to hide".

No worries though. Greedy corporations and governments are greedy and they'll keep pushing the limits of societie's tolerance until it blows up in their face.


Governments are way scarier though. I can decide not to use Google, people in third world countries need the internet.


> It's not a technology problem, it's a social one.

It's both, everyone can contribute to the solution or the problem.


I'm less pessimistic. The practical result of this is likely just going to be more business for the cottage industry of Great Firewall VPNs, which already compete with one another in traffic obfuscation against an adversary far more sophisticated than the government of Kazakhstan. Thankfully, this is currently a case in which the incentives of the market happen to align well with the goals of defeating censorship.


The way that a real authoritarian government entity would handle that is...

An agency is tasked with doing random sample captures of randomly selected target internet connections.

Inventory all the types of traffic being exchanged.

Flag anything that isn't obvious plaintext or already being MiTM'ed for analysis follow up.

Implement new blocking rules or interception implementation for each flow that isn't already being intercepted.


> Flag anything that isn't obvious plaintext or already being MiTM'ed for analysis follow up.

The failure being that the long tail of uncategorized data would be large.

Do you have a good reference for what game state updates look like for every game on the internet? What about custom IoT device protocols? Every type of DRM used for media streaming? Document attachments of spreadsheets or database images containing arbitrary numeric data?

How do you distinguish data like that, which outside of some headers may be indistinguishable from random numbers, from someone using the same format or protocol for encoding arbitrary encrypted data?


They don't need to.

In an authoritarian state, you just start blocking and breaking things.

Everything you don't understand, you block. And then you make the user explain it to you and then if it's a use case you care about, you do the work to either decide it doesn't have any danger of carrying traffic you care about or build an intercept scheme for it.


Ethernet can carry protocols other than IPv4. IPv6 is one of them, but there were at one time a whole slew of them, like IPX and Appletalk. But ISPs don't carry them, so they're effectively blocked and have largely died out, and everything uses IPv4 or IPv6. Even if you want to use Appletalk today, you encapsulate in IPv4 or IPv6.

There are also a whole bunch of IP transport protocols other than TCP and UDP, but firewalls have a tendency to block them, so today people just encapsulate everything in TCP or UDP.

There are a lot of TCP and UDP ports too, with their own protocols, but those darn firewalls again, so now everything is increasingly using HTTP[S].

The things that get blocked never go away, they're just made to look like whatever is still allowed. Yes sir, Mr. Firewall, this is Hypertext Transfer Protocol over SSL on TCP port 443 using IPv4, which is approved for intercept.

Except that it's really email and games and file downloads and whatever else, with things added daily by everyone on the internet, and no reference for what all of that plaintext is even expected to look like.

So you say you're going to get a DPI classifier and try to distinguish all these different types of HTTP. Except that whatever you exclude will soon be right back encoded as formats and protocols you allowed, because information theory says you can encode anything into anything.

And it gets harder to distinguish them with every iteration, because what you're really using to distinguish them is their encoding inefficiency -- it's the things that are always the same for a given class of data, even though the relevant part of the message is the things that are different. The end state of all of this is that the real entropy is all that's left and there is nothing there to distinguish with anymore.


I'll be 40 years old later this year. I've been interested in communications and communications protocols since I was about 12. I've been a software developer with a focus on network communications for over 15 years.

I'm well aware of all that you've said.

My point was, they get TLS interception down, and they capture what they want from a target of interest.

When they look closely at your traffic and decide all these cat gifs have too much or too little entropy in the data that forms their pixels, they simply (if they're courteous) say, "Persuade me that you did not know that this app was helping you hide messages back and forth. Persuade me or we shoot you now." And then they shoot.


I could split hairs and suggest that the browser accept the phony CA and simply use a secondary encryption layer on top of it, but that misses your point. A sufficiently clever evil government will see that you're doing something encryption-like and shoot you.

But, being "sufficiently clever" isn't all that easy. China has done a good job, but they're a very big country with a lot of resources and a lot of very smart people, and let's be honest, even as good as they are, anyone with a will to get that censored information will get it.

It costs a lot to censor people on the Internet. The goal of people like me is not to stop the most determined, intelligent censorship approaches, but rather to make them as expensive as possible to build and maintain.

My ideal is force governments to either accept the Internet without censorship, or almost completely disconnect from the Internet (and simultaneously deny their nations the competitive advantages that come with it). North Korea is a good model. They basically don't have Internet in North Korea. It's sad, but I can live with that; it's better than allowing an oppressive regime to benefit from the Internet while oppressing their citizens.


"Sufficiently clever" has historically been more expensive than difficult.

For example, in order to scale less expensively, the Great Firewall is architected such that it need not actively be in the middle of the entire flow of traffic and need not actively proxy. Historically, they didn't need it to do so in order to achieve their goals.

Now, however, the advancement of a combination of new technologies is finally closing that gap.

In order to maintain historic blocking capability it becomes necessary in the long run to actively MiTM all the connections.

But that can be made to scale and there are nations who can afford it.

How do we know? Because the job is not significantly harder than serving up all that content. (At worst it's a little more than 2x the work.)

And today most content is served up from a handful of privately owned infrastructures. If a corporation can build it, so too can a lot of nation-states.

The incentives to build this have changed.


You're proposing that the penalty for being suspected of subverting the firewall is death. In those cases you're going to want a highly refined system for avoiding detection, and it's also very important that one exist, because regimes that oppressive deserve to be opposed.

Fortunately the more typical case isn't kidnapping and execution but only having your connection blocked, which creates a helpful feedback loop that enables continuous improvement in the ability of secure communications to avoid detection. Which benefits everybody, but especially those in violent authoritarian countries that need it all the more.


No disagreement here. What's being done is despicable.

Rather than death, if we look at the history of oppressive societies, the more likely outcome is a job offer, the kind they won't let you refuse but they'll make it so you don't want to refuse anyway. They find the clever people who are working around the filters and interception and hire them to be the watchers. They get perks like time to spend on a real private connection, etc. Meanwhile they are required to contribute to making the noose ever tighter.


> You're proposing that the penalty for being suspected of subverting the firewall is death.

no, he's being hyperbolic to make the point that in an extreme situation, a default-deny approach could facilitate mass suppression of 'undesirable' traffic without creating an insurmountable backlog of traffic for the 'bad actor state' to review in determining what to process further.


> no, he's being hyperbolic to make the point that in an extreme situation, a default-deny approach could facilitate mass suppression of 'undesirable' traffic without creating an insurmountable backlog of traffic for the 'bad actor state' to review in determining what to process further.

Only it doesn't, because as soon as they allow anything, everything else starts to look enough like whatever is still allowed to make it through, because that's the only way to make it through.

Slashing away more things only increases the resources people will put behind making arbitrary traffic look like allowed traffic. It trades not having to review everything for having to fight everyone instead of only the people they want to block.

Then some people win, everyone copies the winners' methods to get through, and you're back to square one only now everything looks even more like everything else than it did before.


You've elegantly stated my point precisely. Thank you!



In CIS states they prefer the term thermo-rectal cryptanalysis. A soldering iron in one's nether regions does wonders for extracting secrets.


In that case, the old field of steganography might become useful. Embed illegal content within legal content and figure out another means of sharing the decryption scheme.


> Everything you don't understand, you block. And then you make the user explain it to you and then if it's a use case you care about, you do the work to either decide it doesn't have any danger of carrying traffic you care about...

You say "authoritarian state", sounds to me like the network at many employers and institutions in the US!


In essence, what happens is they implement a "if we can't see it, you can't see it" policy.


> An agency is tasked with doing random sample captures

not really, we know exactly what the government response is and it's turning citizen one another, that applied with the gestapo back then and it's happening today with the "social credit system"

why do all the random sampling work if all you need is one "regime believer" among a hundred person or so to maintain full awareness of dissident activities.


One of our ("tech people") main failures was that, while we made a heavy push for server authentication, we didn't make a similarly strong push for client authentication. With client certificates, MITM like that is not possible, unless the server also trusts the MITM CA to authenticate its clients (and uses a CA for the client certificates in the first place, instead of a direct mapping between users and their certificates).


Using CAs to authenticate clients is subject to the same attack. They block communication from any client that won't disclose its private key to the MITM box or use it to encrypt/sign whatever the MITM requires it to.

You can't have security if you have a MITM that says "compromise your endpoint or we block you" and you concede to that. The only real solutions are either political or making the encrypted traffic look like some permitted traffic. (Or using a different network.)


> Using CAs to authenticate clients is subject to the same attack.

You don't need to use a publicly available CA to verify client-side certificates. The server could use its own internal CA to sign CSRs from clients and send the reslting certificate back to the client via email or some other means.


In which case the MITM will be unable to connect to the server because it won't have the certificate (that you sent via email or some other means), so the service simply won't work. That's the whole point, you either go through MITM or not at all.


Somewhat related: if there were a shared password between the client and server, Password Authenticated Key Exchange techniques [0] could offer protection even when the server CA was compromised. PAKEs use zero-knowledge proof techniques to assert that each side already had password material (and derive a key from it) without revealing what the actual password was if the other side didn't have it to begin with.

In this case, only connections where a password was already agreed on would be protected vs. general unauthenticated browsing.

There was a draft proposal to add PAKE support to TLS 1.3, but it appears to have unfortunately expired [1].

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password-authenticated_key_agr... 1: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-tls-pake-04


It died for lack of interest, you can basically watch that happen at IETF 102 here:

https://youtu.be/mx40DSeoxnw?t=1230

TLS 1.3 was in some part an exercise in removing crap people thought might be a good idea in earlier versions, but then either never used or turned out to be a terrible idea but was notionally "optional" so you could say to keep using TLS but just disable that feature. So there is skepticism pre-existing in that room against the idea of just adding more stuff than might be cool unless it's clearly _needed_.

A feature that keeps six people in Kazakhstan (who happen to have manually pre-configured a PAKE) safe but everybody else is still screwed isn't the sort of impact TLS 1.3 was looking for.


I suppose that'd take something pike obfuscated paper mail password exchange before digital. Or rtty. Or 56k international calls for key setup?


How would the client certificates be distributed to users in Kazakhstan?


You could send them to the email address you used to register the account. Then install it in your browser's or OS' certificate store.


Email is similarly unencrypted by default and can be blocked if encrypted and being used as an active circumvention vector. Yes, mail servers outside the jurisdiction could work until https access to gmail is also blocked- but that’s not outside the realm of possibility (see: China) and also begs the question: how do you get to your secure gmail web interface if you need to receive a secure email before your first login?


This is why I'm always advocating for political engagement for fighting these kind of issues. It's not exactly hard for a government to ban or forbid circumventing their monitoring. It does take time, but they're about to catch up.


It’s far harder if you have a major tech industry to push back and the whole massive security risk this exposes big corporations to. Which is something Kazakhstan must not have much of.

This is also terrible for foreign investment and attracting business. It also makes foreign intelligence’s job easier.


You’ve got their priorities mixed up. Staying in power is more important than foreign investment if you’re an authoritarian government. What’s the point of growing the economic pie if you’re not in a position to profit from it ?

Now if you’re a politician in a democracy, you know it may be all over in about 8 years, so it’s more your interest to cosy up to the companies


It’s rare for a politician to only work 4yrs at the policy making level. Most of them are career politicians these days or retired wealthy people, not people with regular jobs giving politics a shot. Yet they all seem to be wealthy in the US, even after years of public service, regardless of their overt stance on business politically. Which is something the big firms can always rely on.


Except I look at the linked mailing list and you already get "us techies" arguing "uh yeah but uhm this isn't so different from the corporate CA intercept thing right so let's not blacklist it uhm".

What the fuck.


There's a broader reason. If the normal browsers break this, the response will just be that they do their own national fork of an open-source browser and distribute that to their people.

The downside of pushing them to that is that that browser will be unlikely to get regular security updates and will likely hide the interception.


Actually, I don't see the issue here. It is literally the same thing as corps intercepting the connections of their employees or visitors. In fact I trust my employer even less than I trust the government.

But I disagree with the response that says we should do nothing. In fact, corporate root certs should be blocked / ignored by the browser in the exact same way and for the exact same reason. The only exception should be certs issued for a limited number of domains that are only active in a specific developer mode that can be enabled by knowledgeable users.

Sure, technological solutions can't solve this issue 100%. (My employer can also fork a browser.) But acting as if everything is OK when the connection is being MITMed is wrong and browsers shouldn't do it.


> corporate root certs should be blocked / ignored by the browser in the exact same way and for the exact same reason ... technological solutions can't solve this issue 100%

Technological solutions can't solve this at all if the entire stack is controlled by the interested party.

In the case of government snooping, you (theoretically) own the end device being used for access. In the case of corporate snooping, you're using corporate owned and managed devices. There is absolutely no technological solution that exists that will prevent another person from building software for (or selling to) corporations who need to snoop on their employees. Considering the selling price of appliances that perform these services (e.g. Bluecoat's range), the cost of a browser is negligible in comparison.

I don't think it's fair to conflate a lack of privacy on corporate owned devices with a lack of privacy on your own personal devices.


"So do we make our flagship product useless for the entire country or not?" - The real question


Yes? This isn't that complicated. You break it, and when competitive browser X refuses to do so, you sell the idea that browser X is compromised for all users everywhere (not just in Kazakhstan)

Stop thinking about the country with literally less than 1% of world internet users and start thinking of the reputational damage a less than charitable presentation of your collaboration with a totalitarian state against your users would do to the other 99%+ of your market.


Apple is openly collaborating with Chinese regime, including allowing the government to snoop on all Chinese traffic, yet they still have a high reputation for privacy. This just doesn't work, people don't give a shit about other countries.


That's fair, but the country doing this will just fork an open-source browser and make it their official browser.


Sure. "don't use Kazakhfox, it's malware, we've submitted definitions to the AV databases" isn't a hard sell for your 99%+ audience.

Malware forks of open source projects (and closed-source software!) are not a new problem.


Except they are a new problem when the use of them is mandated by a nation-state.


Which is bad news for the ~15m internet users in Kazakhstan. For the ~4000m internet users not in Kazakhstan & generally immune to their rubber hose attack, protecting them from being one BGP fuckup away from being MITMed by a hostile foreign power is much more important.


Totally separate problem that I agree needs to be fixed.

In reality, being one BGP trick away from a mere dedicated individual or corporate owning certs for your domain is an actual risk today.


Are you willing to intentionally break your software (which is currently working) for an entire country?


If you want to put a stop to things like this, then you have to. Complaints from companies and the general population should be enough to fix the issue.


Mere collateral damage.


Is it better to be complicit with an authoritarian regime that is actively spying on their people, in order to have a marginally larger user base? I don't think so.

In fact, you're making it worse because you're giving legitimacy to a government that is conducting actions which we shouldn't consider acceptable. If the US government started doing the same thing, I would really hope that browsers would block those certificates too.


The solution to that problem was invented and reinvented hundreds of years ago. It is called gunpowder.


This is both uncomfortable and correct.


Russian revolution says hello.


It only becomes a social problem after the society gets the tools to know that the government is messing with their communications.

HTTPS is that tool. It is a social problem now, it was a technical problem problem just recently.


Will oscp stapling be able to be used to detect "something fishy" going on, because in that case the root ca wouldn't actually match. Do browsers compare the oscp root with the root of the current chain?

Actually, if it's mitm it's "all bets are off" isn't it, because the KZ government can filter that it out the proxied response?

Still, if oscp can assist at all, it's probably worth it that the browsers check for mismatch (if they don't already)

Edit: typos


Browsers always trust manually installed CA roots, because that scenario is used by many corporations to monitor their traffic. OCSP, HPKP, etc won't help.


There are more benign uses too - many organisations run an internal PKI, and installing their root CA prevents employees' browsers from displaying warnings about untrusted certificates when accessing internal web apps/sites.


You might be able to make intranet.company-name.tld and have a parking page on the company-name.tld and use that to get a wildcard cert that can be used for the internal pages.


Which you distribute to thousands of people on tens of thousands of devices?


With this you would have a vaild cert for your intranet aka no need to install a self-signed one.


However you would have a single wildcart cert + key that would need to be placed on thousands, or tens of thousands, of machines, by hundreds of staff is dozens of departments.

It would be meaningless.

I can prove ownership and then receive a wildcard certificate for *.internal.company.com, usually by a TXT record or similar (lets ignore EV certs for now), however that certificate isn't an intermediate certificate which is limited to signing new end certificates for blah1.internal.company.com, but wouldn't be able to sign for blah1.not.company.com.

I'm no SSL/TLS expert by any means, so please let me know if I'm wrong and it is fairly easy to get intermediate certificates that are domain name limited - x509 constraints are apparently flakey.


That would be a bad use IMO. Letsencrypt solves any need for legitimate certificates.


I don't think it's a bad use. When I logon to my SAN or UPS web interfaces, I don't want to type https://ups01.publicDNSdomain.com, and visit a site with a CT logged certificate. It's an absolutely internal thing and every Active Directory domain already has an (ideally) non-externally resolved DNS domain setup for use. You've already got an internal CA and deployed your own root because there's a series of Microsoft services that work best this way, so it makes a lot of sense to continue to use rather than trying to introduce Lets Encrypt in this scenario.


You don't have to serve that website publicly or even set up DNS records. You only need to set up DNS verification to serve one public TXT record for letsencrypt. Everything else could be internal. Letsencrypt certifies that you own domain. You can do anything with that domain.


Sometimes you don't want to make that information public though. For security (you don't want to publish your whole tech stack information) and secrecy (you don't want to publish registration of halflife3.internal.valve.com).


Then just use a wildcard cert.


Wildcard certs are a security ops nightmare. You really don't want to throw the private key for that around to every small project, and you need some good, automated way of rolling them across multiple services. Doable, but if you can avoid this, it's a better to avoid.


This 100x - in just about any organisation of any size, if you use a single wildcard cert for all internal services, then it's inevitable that the private key will end up in the hands of an employee that shouldn't have it.


I'm aware you can use Lets Encrypt that way, I just don't agree that it's bad use of an internal PKI to use it as an alternative.


Well, it's unnecessary work to install and maintain that internal CA. Keeping CA key safe is very important, because leaked key might lead to your internal connections to, e.g., Google be compromised, so it's like keeping a bomb inside your building. If you already have that internal PKI, you can use it, sure, but I still think that it's a bad idea to use it only for internal websites.


> Letsencrypt solves any need for legitimate certificates.

... unless you want any private keys to be personally signed and or generated by bob & alice over in security after checking some boxes in an internal audit form, or any other number of company-internal schemes involving signing and encryption of business-specific data


You're generating private key securely. You're generating CSR which contains public key and signed by that private key and now you need to move that CSR from private location to a public location. But that's not bad, it does not contain anything that could be compromised and your private key is kept safe. Then you're using letsencrypt to issue that certificate using that CSR and keep using that CSR (it does not expire) to renew certificate. All that time private key is kept in safety and is only used by your webserver. Letsencrypt allows you to generate legitimate certificate for internal websites without any compromise on security.

The only use-case that's not possible with Letsencrypt is to issue certificate for IP address.


Lol. Sure, company sysadmins will run certbot on their mainframes.


There are plenty of clients for letsencrypt, including even Bash ones. That should not be a problem.


Letsencrypt only issues certs for publicly accessible hosts. If you've got a bunch of intranet servers / REST services / whatever that are firewalled from the public internet, you're out of luck.


Thats incorrect, you can verify using DNS zone records, so the server can be as firewalled or air gapped as you want.


For mobile apps, though, you can bootstrap HPKP with a key built into the app. I worked on an app doing this, and it would certainly fail to connect in this scenario.


A lot of internal enterprise networks use MITM, so your app won't work there as well. It might be a good thing or not, depending on your use-case.


Yeah, I considered this a feature. As mentioned elsewhere in these comments, we should have a way to limit the scope of corporate certs.


One solution is to use Name Constraints. The organizational certificate authority could be issued with Name Constraints limiting its power to a certain domain name only, e.g. *.example.com, using Permitted Subtree.

If I was setting up an organizational CA for internal websites (not MITM), I would consider using Name Constraints to limit the certificate's scope and potential for abuse or compromise.


If the app is not for that particular corporation, then no harm done.


Not when the cert has been previously CT and Staple preloaded I suspect?


If a user manually imports a CA, it bypasses protections like CT [1]. This is a feature specifically designed to allow MITM for corporate proxies.

Always seemed like a misfeature to me, but all the browsers do it.

[1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/net/...


Sounds ridiculous that even when a site host specifically says they want things Stapled and CTd are ignored like that.


Would the firewall allow your package if you do not use Kazakh certificate as root certificate?


> Now "us techies" have to find a new technical solution to a very social problem.

Cert pinning does mitigate it for apps, doesn't it? The end-user doesn't need to really worry abt rouge root CAs, if my understanding is right.

Traditional VPNs, P2P VPNs, Tor as a Proxy (decentralised net? dat/i2p/freenet/ipfs) could solve it generally across various use-cases, of which, VPNs are already mainstream.


> Cert pinning does mitigate it for apps, doesn't it?

Applications where the developer has pinned to their own certificate will stop this attack.

Chrome and Firefox will ignore pinning for locally installed CAs. This is a very common use case in the enterprise where, for example, a bank has audit requirements to decrypt and store all workstation traffic.


It'll "stop this attack" by ensuring that the app won't work through the MITM - so it won't be able to connect from any Kazakhstan users unless/until the pinning is removed.


Not necessarily. We have rolled out SSL inspection at my company and have to exclude certain apps (e.g. Dropbox, Google Drive) or else they won't work. The FW just blocks the connection and the user gets a SSL/TLS error.


Sure, but then instead of the government saying "hey, run this thing or else your app won't work," they can only say "your app doesn't work now." Spying on you is still prevented.


I dont think pinning will work with for example letsencrypt. You can pin many certs but if you loose them all you are screwed. If you check your root cers you will likely find one from every major ISP in your country.


You would usually pin an intermediate, so for Let's Encrypt that would be Let's Encrypt Authority X3 (it might also make sense to pin Let's Encrypt Authority X4 as a backup)

And er, no, the overlap between operators of public Certificate Authorities and national ISPs is very small. There are only 57 root CAs trusted by Mozilla.


You don’t need to pin against a state. Just deselect Kazachstan as a region where your app is offered, because it’s not going to work anyway if you try.


The solution is to warn users that their security+privacy is compromised, and let them make their own informed choice. Techies don't often see that their own wishes shouldn't trump those of individuals (but maybe we're getting into politics now)

Another technical solution would have been to allow security without privacy. If the purpose of the government actions is just to monitor content, you can enable that without disabling security. The HTTP protocol could be modified to transmit checksums signed by a cert, so that a client can verify that content has not been modified, but that content can be (optionally) not encrypted, but still no content-injecting attacks can take place.

But privacy advocates don't like it, so the result is either you have total security + privacy (such as it is), or none at all.


Unfortunately governments like that will continue to do low effort workarounds as long as they have police and military forces to respond to those who don't conform.


A first suggestion is to ban the cert in chrome/firefox and then keep banning certs as they issue them.


> Send a message to everyone requiring a government root CA with an easy install, or their internet won't work.

They’re training their entire population to install things that they get in unsolicited emails that purport to be from a legitimate source.

What could go wrong?


It protects privacy for the masses in the countries where most techies live, which is what most of us were paying attention to.

In places like Kazakhstan and China it's a harder problem, and HTTPS is necessary but not sufficient to solve it.


Before we celebrate defeat, let's just acknowledge that these practices are not taking place in the US, EU, etc.

And compromising HTTPS in places with a functional judicial system (and human rights) would probably be blocked by an end-less series of law suites.


Everything can be justified by national security. You can't try and block something with "an end-less series of law suites" if the defending party doesn't even need to provide any kind of proof. "Why are we MTiMing HTTPS? This is un-constitutional! -- Because internet is a threat to national security which in turn has higher priority than your rights, Citizen!. Everything else is classified and will be discussed in a closed court." Take a wild guess what that court is going to decide...


Aren't some US providers (Comcast, Verizon?) injecting nasty tracking/advertising into HTTP pages?

That's extremely worrying as well and it appears politics so far are unwilling to make it illegal. There needs to be more protest and more competition so consumers can vote with their wallets.


Maybe this sort of interruption is manageable when half of your 18 million people are rural and the economy isn't heavily dependent on internet traffic. Try doing this in a more urban populated country and you will see a much different outcome.


You just start small, from small cities, so rest of people have enough time to prepare.


Technology enables policies both good and not so good. This is just another example of that.


The goal here is to validate that one is communicating with whom they think they are. That's as pure a technical goal as you can get. Oddly this is still an unsolved problem on the internet. BTW any solution to this problem will be attacked or shot down by governments and companies around the world.


what good?


I was certain I read a few years ago that Google would mandate that all OEMs would be forced to use a single unified certificate list, which I thought at the time was a way to pre-empt this sort of thing. But I can't find any new info about that anywhere. I only found an article about how to add new certificates on new Android versions in 2019, so I guess you can still change them.

I wonder if Google changed its mind about this once Sundar Pichai took over and then gave Project Dragonfly the greenlight.



>Send a message to everyone requiring a government root CA with an easy install, or their internet won't work.

but atleast we know


> It never ends.

Yeah. Fangs vs shells. Microbes vs white cells.

It's just the way this universe works. The struggle is eternal. Probably built into the root parameters of the Big Bang, if you could somehow trace it that far back in time and causality (which you probably can't, I dunno).


If this struggle ever ended, we would just find another struggle, its in our nature.


It already exists https://www.torproject.org .


We need new measures to not allow these certificates to be installed unless they're verified, or at least the OS shows a massive giant warning "DO NOT DO THIS unless you accept this cert gives $identity access to all your data".

Seems a very solvable problem.


Verified by whom? I certainly want my browser and OS to retain my possibility of installing certificates all day long.

Trivial technological solutions will not stop the state actor from retaliating against those not following their policy either.


I mean, the choice being presented is to install the MITM cert, or to not use the internet at all. The latter is an answer, certainly, but not what I would call a very good solution.


The government is forcing people to find a third choice and they might not like what they pick.


It's a common meme that users will click "yes" to everything, but I'm not sure people realise just how far that goes. Look how it looks when Chrome marks a site as malware:

https://www.removemalware.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/the...

Wait until you're doing forensics on a cryptolocker outbreak and you find not only did a user do that, but multiple users helped her through it and the management then praised her for overcoming technical barriers even after it was found to be the cause of the incident.

Unfortunately nothing about warnings makes anything a solved problem.


Corporations also do this so they can scan traffic for data exfil.


Which is, tbqh, a useless solution. Oh wow, now an attacker just has to include some obfuscated javascript encryption lib. Bam. Exfil detection completely bypassed.


For example corporations might want to make sure that worker is not sending e-mails with confidential data from its gmail. Sophisticated thief surely will circumvent that kind of protection, but a lot of thieves are stupid, so simple measures actually work.


True, but Joe Dipseedoodle doesn't accidentally send out an HR report because he was logged into his personal email account.

Too much security is willing to give up on the 95% because they can't get the 100%.


Is that a new word I should know?


It's a shortened version of "exfiltration"


Steganography. With a good key and enough stuffing, it is undetectable


If they're scrutinizing you closely, I would not trust my life to it. If the hash of the cat gifs you're exchanging is different from others, eventually there's going to be too much or too little entropy in those pixels and they'll make a strong statistical case against you.


Do you mean steganography? Stenography is writing in shorthand (or typing on a stenotype, like court reporters do).


autocorrect strikes again :)


to be fair some of us told from the beginning that making all user used to trust the green check would have caused this sort of trust fatigue to the point the majority would have stopped bothering with the actual certificate content and trust chain, and you can search my history highlighting this very issue in relation to let's encrypt, it was a social issue from the very beginning and I got downvoted heavily and repeatedly because apparently "techies" can't be bothered with exceptions and failure modes once a catch all solution is found

but the warning signs were all there i.e. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17298747#17304077


We don’t want users to trust the green check, because it never meant you could trust a site. We do want users to distrust plaintext, because it means the café you’re visiting can steal your password. I don’t see how this is a good criticism of the push for HTTPS everywhere (which appears to be the context here).


because cafe can just ask people 'install this extension to navigate' and non-tech users being users will fall for it most of the time, because state actor can do even worse, and once we trained the users that non green check is dangerous they won't have the knowledge to distinguish between "insecure with no check" and "maybe secure with check but I've to control every time the details", people will shortcut that part, until some researcher finds our for them and even then it's not guaranteed that the message will reach everyone


Exactly - this is why we don't want to train people that non-TLS traffic is insecure, but rather keep them from encountering it, ever, ideally. TLS must be the default- a baseline- and deviating from that baseline must be at least as hard as getting a user to install a malicious extension.

Ever SSHed into a server and been told by your SSH client that, oh, by the way, the server is using the NULL cipher with no authentication, and network attackers can mess with your session arbitrarily? Probably not. That's what using plaintext HTTP should feel like.


I think you're missing one important detail: the idea behind the green padlock is that the average end user isn't technically capable of (or shouldn't have to) monitor all the details of their internet connections to make sure they're secure.

If that basic intuition about users is correct, the solution is not to give up on this and force users to deal with the true complexity of the situation. The solution is for the browser to show a red blinking INSECURE instead of the green padlock when the cert it receives for a site doesn't have a valid chain to a root in the default key store shipped with the browser.

To be honest, I can't figure out why this isn't already the default behavior. It would solve a bunch of other problems as a side effect, including insecure crappy antivirus programs that MITM your internet connection.


if they can force a cert into your os trust store they can force a cert into your browser trust store, this solves some very specific issue but not this one.


That's why I said "store shipped with the browser". I don't think Kazakhstan has the ability to get Firefox to ship their root cert.


this is kinda rich under an article where they forced a cert into the is trust store. it takes the same amount of effort to get the cert into browser specific stores because these need to be editable and an installer get control of the system anyway

"it rather involves being already at the other end of this airtight d doorway"

the current page ask the user to run an installer, elevating privilege. there's nothing a browser can really do against that. DLL can be replaced and signatures can be tempered etc.

just because you said "ship them with the browse" doesn't make you magically right nor safe under the linked threat


Alerting the user when a MITM certificate is active in the trust store is relying on a completely different threat model than "protect the entire operating system against state-mandated malware". I'm saying browsers should at least do the former. You seem to think that's pointless unless they also do the latter, but of course they can't do that. Some security of the trust store is better than no security.


Would someone with network access in Kazakhstan check if Caddy's MITM detector catches this please? https://caddyserver.com/docs/mitm-detection - or https://mitm.watch (Cloudflare's unofficial deployment of the same tech).

If it does not, could you file a bug report with a complete packet capture (and exact browser version - multiple browsers are preferred)? https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues

(Edit: Reportedly, "not all Internet providers have started MITM attacks yet" so if you do the test, make sure you are on an intercepted network... if safe to do so.)


So uh, should I be concerned at all if my connection came back as a likely MITM from my home network in the US? Or is it most likely a false positive caused by my firewall or something?

I tested it both off a VPN and on a VPN from my iPhone yet still had the same result both times.


It was antivirus in my case. It has web scan feature that MITMs https sites locally. Disabling the feature made it "MITM unlikely".


If your phone is also used for work, you might have gotten a root certificate installed through their MDM program. Check Settings>General>About>Certificate Trust Settings for a root certificate.


On this machine I get "likely" in firefox, "unlikely" in a firefox private window and "unlikely" in chrome. Not sure what to make of that.

(Also all of the installed extensions are also enabled in private mode. I know that changed recently so I checked. Also the certs the browers claim I'm getting in all three scenarios seem to be the same...)


Probably an outdated implementation of our rules, regarding Firefox on your machine. Feel free to file an issue; also we will be switching to Cloudflare's mitmengine (based on the same research paper, but they have way more resources to keep it maintained at scale, thus making it more accurate) in Caddy 2 in a matter of months.


It also said "Likely MITM" for me (Firefox on CentOS 7), but the SHA256 certificate fingerprint in the browser matches the one seen by Qualys (https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=mitm.watch), so at least in my case it seems to be a false positive.


iOS is tricky because of its weird rules regarding TLS libraries and web views. If you are sure you haven't any rogue CA certs in your applicable trust stores, it's probably a false positive.


Yeah no CA certs as this is a personal phone, and I just checked from my Fedora box and it said MITM unlikely so guessing it’s just iOS being weird.


FYI, Safari on iOS 13 (beta) uses a different set and ordering of extensions.

I currently see "0, 23, 65281, 10, 11, 16, 5, 13, 18, 51, 45, 43, 21".


Which ISP?


Cox cable but I just checked on my Fedora box and it came through as MITM unlikely so it looks like it’s just an oddity with iOS like mholt said.



In Russia on attempt to open https://mitm.watch I get provider's page with message "Requested IP is blocked"


I just tested with ExpressVPN via their Kazakhstan endpoint. On 46.244.29.XXX on the ISP A2B IP B.V. I don't seem to be MITM'ed at all, so I can't report anything about the MITM-detector.


Their Kazakhstan endpoint is fake; it's a 'virtual' exit node that's actually in Singapore. This info is buried in their help pages: https://www.expressvpn.com/support/troubleshooting/virtual-s...


This sort of misbehavior is, unfortunately, common to a number of VPN services that claim to have endpoints in many unusual countries. ExpressVPN has sort of owned up to it (but they don't exactly make those disclosures obvious); others have not.

https://restoreprivacy.com/vpn-server-locations/


Thanks for the report. Both I and Cloudflare[1] are interested in any updates. If you know your connection is being MITM'ed by your ISP or your government please do the test again if it is safe to do so.

[1]: https://twitter.com/grittygrease/status/1151921809417048064


Does this do something substantially different than:

https://www.grc.com/fingerprints.htm


Would this detect MITM if you installed a root cert from ex: school, employer, etc?


Theoretical quedtion: would a VPN in Kazakhstan allow you to test this?


No, as the certificates are user installed. The Bugzilla and other threads are about distrusting that user certificate.


VPN with endpoint on affected ISP + Installing the cert (which is linked in the issue on Bugzilla) should be the same as just using the affect ISP directly, shouldn't it?


Yeah, it should, unless this is only for residential ISPs, which I strongly doubt. I can't appear to find a Kazakhstan-hosted VPN however, did you find one?


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: