Qualys Blog

www.qualys.com
1217 posts

Fixing HPKP with Certificate Constraints

This is the third post in my series on HPKP. In my first post I declared HPKP dead, and in my second post I explored the possibility of fixing it by introducing pin revocation. Today I will consider an entirely different approach to make HPKP much safer, by changing how it’s activated.

In my previous blog post I argued that the biggest flaw of HPKP is that it doesn’t tolerate failures. That’s why I offered pin revocation as a solution. In my approach, the CAs’ existing OCSP infrastructure is used for the revocation, keeping things simple. The main disadvantage of the proposal is that there is deep distrust of both CAs and also no faith that they will maintain rock-solid revocation infrastructure.

Rethinking the problems with HPKP, I decided that I could attempt to solve them from another angle. To summarise, there are two big problems with HPKP: 1) it’s too easy to activate by anyone who can set HTTP response headers on your site and 2) there is no way to recover from failure. This incredibly low activation bar allows deployments that haven’t been thought through, activation by mistake, and even malicious pinning. The lack of failure recovery makes it very dangerous.

Certificate Constraints

It recently occurred to me that we could fix things largely by allowing HPKP activation only on the certificates that allow it. Technically, this could be achieved by placing a special OID in the certificates when appropriate. If the OID is there, browsers pin, otherwise they don’t.

With this feature in place, CAs could designate certain intermediates as suitable for pinning, guarantee public key longevity, and place the appropriate OIDs in them. Because this is a special type of certificate, it’s not something that you’d get by default. And, even if you did, recovering from failure is as easy as getting a new certificate.

If we really wanted to—for the brave—we could use a different OID to allow pinning to the leaf, in which case HPKP would be more difficult to activate, as secure as it is today in preventing MITM attacks, but there wouldn’t be a way to recover from failure. In this case the CAs wouldn’t need to promise key longevity, but they would still operate as gatekeepers to make malicious pinning less likely. Honestly, I don’t think this OID is a good idea. Those rare companies that wish to pin can still fallback to static pinning (embedded in the browser code). Even though static pinning is inefficient, there’s so few of those who might be interested that it doesn’t really matter.

The most efficient and most secure way way to pin today is to get a pair of intermediate certificates from different CAs and pin to them. Obviously, only wealthy organisations can do that. With certificate constraints, nothing would change, as their intermediates would just need to have the correct OIDs in place.

Conclusion

Are there any drawbacks to HPKP with certificate constraints? You could argue that it makes pinning more expensive because it reduces the pool of CAs from which you can get your certificates. However, the certificate expense is only a fraction of the overall cost of pinning, so I think that the difference doesn’t really matter.

The best thing about this approach is that the browser vendors would only need to add a tiny amount of code to make it happen. Most of the work would be in standardising the OIDs.

September Patch Tuesday: 27 Critical Vulnerabilities from Microsoft, plus Critical Adobe Patches

Today Microsoft released a fairly large batch of patches covering 81 vulnerabilities as part of September’s Patch Tuesday update, with 38 of them impacting Windows. Patches covering 27 of these vulnerabilities are labeled as Critical, and 39 can result in Remote Code Execution (RCE).  According to Microsoft, one critical vulnerability impacting HoloLens has a public exploit, and there are active malware campaigns exploiting a .NET vulnerability. Microsoft has also patched the BlueBorne vulnerability that could allow an attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack against a Windows system.

Continue reading …

Fixing HPKP with Pin Revocation

Last year, almost exactly to the day, I declared HPKP effectively dead. I believed then—and I still do—that HPKP is too complex and too dangerous to be worth the effort. The biggest problem lies in the fact that there is no sufficient margin of safety; pinning failures are always catastrophic. That’s always bothered me and I wondered if it was possible to somehow fix HPKP without starting from scratch. That’s what this blog post is about.

If you haven’t already read my last year’s blog post, I suggest that you do so now as it will make the discussion easier to follow. I’ll wait for you patiently until you come back.

Today I am exploring the possibility of fixing HPKP with an introduction of pin revocation, which would be used in case of emergency. Please note that, even though I’ll be trying to save HPKP from a technical perspective, I am not necessarily declaring that HPKP is worth saving. The landscape of PKI had changed and today we have Certificate Transparency (CT), which addresses one set of problems that HPKP was supposed to solve, and also Certification Authority Authorization (CAA), which addresses another set of problems. One could argue that, between CT and CAA, there is perhaps not enough left for HPKP to do, given its complexities. I’ll leave that discussion for some other time. For now, let’s attempt the challenge of making HPKP more palatable. Continue reading …

SANS Institute: Hackers Paint a Bullseye on Your Employees and Endpoints

End users and their devices are right smack in the center of the battle between enterprise InfoSec teams and malicious hackers, and it’s not hard to see why.

When compromised, connected endpoints — desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets — offer intruders major entry points into corporate networks. However, end users are also their organizations’ best threat detection tools.

That’s a key takeaway from SANS Institute’s “2017 Threat Landscape Survey: Users on the Front Line,” a report published in August and co-sponsored by Qualys.

The study, conducted in May and June, polled 263 IT and InfoSec pros from companies of all sizes and major industries such as finance, government, technology and education.

It found that most of the top intrusion methods reported by respondents sought to directly or indirectly compromise end users or their devices. Hackers’ preferred threat vectors included:

  • Email attachment or link (flagged by 74 percent of respondents)
  • Web-based drive by or download (48 percent)
  • App vulnerabilities on endpoints (30 percent)
  • Web server / web app vulnerabilities (26 percent)
  • Removable storage devices (26 percent)

Continue reading …

Qualys Cloud Platform 2.30 New Features

This release of the Qualys Cloud Platform version 2.30 includes updates and new features for Cloud Agent, EC2 Connector, Web Application Scanning, Web Application Firewall, and Security Assessment Questionnaire, highlights as follows.  (This posting has been updated on 9/6/2017 to reflect new feature capabilities in the release, as noted below.)

Continue reading …

Call for Papers: Qualys Security Conference 2017

Our annual user conference, QSC17, is quickly approaching and we are looking for customer presentations that showcase hot topics related to security and best practices via case studies leveraging the use of Qualys technologies.

If you would like to be considered as a presenter, please send a session title and short abstract to David Conner at dconner@qualys.com. The CFP is open until September 7, 2017.

This year’s event will be held at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino on October 18-19, in Las Vegas. QSC is a unique event with the main purpose to connect our customers and partners with our engineers and leading industry experts. To learn more about Qualys Security Conference, watch the QSC16 highlights video.

Qualys Policy Compliance Notification: Policy Library Update

Qualys’ library of built-in policies makes it easy to comply with commonly adhered to security standards and regulations. Qualys provides a wide range of policies, including many that have been certified by CIS as well as ones based on security guidelines from vendors such as Microsoft and VMware.

In order to keep up with the latest changes in security control requirements and new technologies, Qualys publishes new content to the Policy Library monthly.

This release includes new policies and updates covering:

  • New CIS versions for Apache HTTP Server, Solaris, Microsoft Windows 2016, centOS, Microsoft IIS, Oracle Linux, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux
  • New DISA STIG policies for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Windows 2016
  • New Security & Configuration Policies for IIS, MS SQL Server 2016
  • New Mandate mappings for CIS Critical Security Controls & First Five CIS Controls
  • Several updates to minor versions for Vendor Recommended and CIS policies

Continue reading …

Countdown to GDPR: IT Policy Compliance

From the first page, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation stresses the importance it places on the security and privacy of EU residents’ private information. The 88-page document opens by referring to the protection of this personal data as a “fundamental right” essential for “freedom, security and justice” and for creating the “trust” needed for the “digital economy” to flourish.

The stakes are sky-high for EU regulators tasked with enforcing GDPR, and for organisations that must comply with it. The requirements outlined in the document amount to what some have called “zero-tolerance” on mishandling EU residents’ personally identifiable information (PII) and apply to any organisation doing business in the EU, regardless of where they are based.

Both data “controllers” — those who collect the data — and data “processors” — those with whom it’s shared — must implement “appropriate technical and organisational measures” and their IT networks and systems must “resist, at a given level of confidence, accidental events or unlawful or malicious actions.”

Bottom line: Organisations are expected to have technology and processes in place to prevent accidental or malicious incidents that compromise the “availability, authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of stored or transmitted personal data.”

As we’ve discussed in this GDPR preparedness blog series, while the regulation’s document is light on specific prescriptive information security controls and technologies, organisations must have solid InfoSec foundations in place to comply with this regulation, which goes into effect in May 2018.

In prior installments, we’ve discussed the importance for GDPR compliance of IT asset inventory, vulnerability management, prioritization of remediation based on current threats, and vendor risk assessment. Today, we’ll focus on another core component for preparing for GDPR: policy compliance.

Continue reading …

Qualys Cloud Suite 8.10.2 New Features

This new patch release of the Qualys Cloud Suite, version 8.10.2, includes updates to shared platform features, a new role for user management, and expanded Policy Compliance platform support. Continue reading …

August Patch Tuesday: 25 critical Microsoft vulnerabilities, 43 for Adobe

Today Microsoft released patches covering 48 vulnerabilities as part of August’s Patch Tuesday update, with 15 of them affecting Windows. Patches covering 25 of these vulnerabilities are labeled as Critical, and 27 can result in Remote Code Execution. According to Microsoft, none of these vulnerabilities are currently being exploited in the wild.

Continue reading …