1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
|
---
title: "What happened at CT days 2020?"
date: 2020-09-14
---
# What happened at CT days 2020?
_Rasmus Dahlberg, 2020-09-14._
This year’s
[CT days](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/ct-policy/JWVVhZTL5RM)
were hosted remotely on September 8–9. The agenda covered a wide range of
topics, such as making CT more newcomer friendly, updating user-agent policies,
and what it takes to operate a log at scale. I do not intend to write about all
of it, and especially not every little detail. You will be brought up to speed
on some highlights and get further reading. All credit obviously goes to the
people who presented sessions on this material.
## New community website
You might be familiar with the
[current CT website](https://web.archive.org/web/20200829193007/https://www.certificate-transparency.org/).
It is a little bit like an explosion of technical details and links from several
years back that, if you digest it all, tell you how Google’s CT project works.
This is not particularly welcoming for newcomers that need to grasp what CT is
today and how it fits into the broader picture of the web’s public-key
infrastructure. For example, CT is no longer Google’s own logging project, but
rather an ecosystem of different people and organizations that come together
with one mission: to detect maliciously or mistakenly issued certificates. This
happens to be the first thing you will find when browsing the
[new community website](https://certificate.transparency.dev/).
It is nifty looking, and I encourage you to browse it yourself. You will notice
that the origin story of CT and its broader context is described, which helps
the reader pick up the fundamentals from a combination of text and
visualizations.
**source**: https://certificate.transparency.dev/
[Ryan Hurst](https://unmitigatedrisk.com/) explained that we can think of the
new community website as a place where newcomers can be directed to understand
the value of CT and how it works. Moreover, it is our collective responsibility
to add anything that is missing and keep it up-to-date. Anyone can
[submit pull requests](https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-community-site)
on GitHub.
## Policy updates
I can second that it is not always easy to understand every nuance of CT
enforcement by different user agents. For example, I remember
[filing a bug](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1053971#c1)
not too long ago when noticing that Chromium (not to be confused with Google
Chrome) disabled CT by default. In the future there might be a separate and
lighter-weight Chromium CT policy that embedders could use as a starting point,
but for now Google’s policy will be shaped solely for Chrome. This is reflected
by the new CT policy website that is being drafted: the so-called
[Chrome Certificate Transparency Policy](https://googlechrome.github.io/CertificateTransparency/ct_policy.html).
[Devon O’Brien](https://twitter.com/modyoloN) appropriately described it as a
complete overhaul of what the current policy states and how these requirements
are framed specifically for enforcement in Chrome.
The CT community website will link the updated CT policy once it goes live in
the near future. In the mean time, you can enjoy the draft and provide feedback
to the
[Chrome CT team](mailto:chrome-certificate-transparency@google.com)
or the
[CT policy group](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/ct-policy).
The recommended starting point is the different states that a CT log can be in.
I am not going to detail it, but it was mentioned as a pro-tip in multiple
sessions. You will also notice that informative reference material was added,
with more to come as the broader community identifies components that are
unclear or missing.
There are several policy changes in the midst of the above updates. While not
particularly huge, they are there and worth pointing out. All new CT logs must
be temporally sharded. A log that is temporally sharded accepts logging of
certificates that fall into a range of expiry dates. For example, a 2020-shard
would not accept certificates that expire in 2021. The status of sharding moves
from allowed to required, solving the issue of logs that grow forever and ever.
A log must additionally not return multiple different SCTs for a single log
entry, which solves undefined behavior in
[RFC 6962](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962)
that could lead to unverifiable SCTs in quirky corner cases. Note that a
certificate that passes the Google Chrome CT policy is now said to be CT
compliant. It is analogous to the current wording of a certificate being CT
qualified, and avoids confusion with CT logs that can also be qualified in the
browser.
[Clint Wilson](https://twitter.com/clintw_) announced
[Apple’s intended policy updates](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?oldui=1#!topic/ct-policy/JWVVhZTL5RM).
They are also working towards definitions in undefined scenarios, such as
expressing their policy in terms of days as opposed to months. The most notable
policy update (in my opinion) is that the SCT diversity and quantity assumption
for a CT compliant certificate is about to change. Currently, Apple considers a
certificate CT compliant if accompanied by two SCTs from any pair of CT logs.
Longer-lived certificates will require an additional SCT in the future, and log
operator diversity will be added as well. This reduces the risk that a once CT
compliant certificate will become non-compliant during its life time. The other
benefit is that no single log operator can issue a certificate’s SCTs, which
raises the bar towards unnoticed certificate mis-issuance. What it means that
two log operators are diverse (also known as independent) is somewhat
non-trivial: it can span many different dimensions, such as organization,
country, and infrastructural providers. Google’s
[updated policy for log operators](https://googlechrome.github.io/CertificateTransparency/log_policy.html)
will require a self-assertion that you are independent of all other log
operators. My best guess is that Apple will rely on something similar to define
log diversity.
## Removing the one-Google log requirement?
Google Chrome currently considers a certificate CT compliant if it is
accompanied by two SCTs. One of these SCTs must additionally be issued by a log
that Google runs. If Google’s CT logs are operated in good faith, we can be sure
that there are no mis-issued certificates that go unnoticed.
To state the obvious, the point of CT is not to trust that Google keeps the
wider web safe from certificate mis-issuance. The current set-up is in fact
quite error-prone: sub-optimal trust assumptions aside, a Google outage would
essentially disable issuance of new CT compliant certificates on the web. Devon
O’Brien expressed a desire to remove Google from the critical path of
certificate issuance, and what considerations that need to go into such a
decision. The major part is that Google must accept that they lose their
privilege of observing all issued certificates up-front, which provides
significant proactive security for Chrome users but might impend broader
user-agent adoption. The result of such a change is that SCTs must be audited
reactively in the background from many diverse vantage points, such that
mis-issued certificates get noticed without the one-Google log policy.
[Chris Thompson](https://notyetsecure.com/) presented Google’s plans on
[opt-in SCT auditing](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G1Jy8LJgSqJ-B673GnTYIG4b7XRw2ZLtvvSlrqFcl4A/edit).
The basic idea is to submit a random subset of SCTs to a Google-operated CT
auditor. If an SCT is encountered that Google does not know about, that can be
investigated further by challenging the issuing CT logs to prove certificate
inclusion. The reason why this requires opt-in stems from the fact that the user
is essentially sharing a random subset of its browsing history with Google. You
might wonder who would opt-in for that, but it actually fits pretty well into
the existing Safe Browsing Extended Reporting (SBER) programme. My largest
concern is that opted-in users might be identifiable, and in that case the rest
of us could still be attacked without high likelihood of detection.
[Sarah Meiklejohn](https://smeiklej.com/) presented a follow-up session on
privacy-preserving SCT auditing. It could be described as partial highlights of
a systematic literature study that considered 15 different proposals against the
following criteria:
1. **Functionality**. Does it work and in what threat model?
2. **Privacy**. What information do which parties learn?
3. **Client-side performance**. Bandwidth, computation, and storage?
4. **Latency**. How much is added, if any?
5. **Server-side infrastructure costs**. What needs to be changed or added?
6. **Threat model**. Mainly in terms of which parties need to trust each other.
7. **Non-Google deployability**. Can it be deployed without Google-scale?
8. **Near-term deployability**. Can we roll it out sooner rather than later?
A subtle message is that a proposal without a third-party CT auditor is
incomplete. I share this view because we cannot expect an end-user to take any
reasonable action if log misbehavior is suspected. Therefore, it is not just
proof fetching that needs to be private: also the process of reporting issues.
## Acknowledgments
Thanks to everyone that contributed to CT days 2020, both in terms of
organization and putting in the actual work that the different sessions
presented. A detailed summary and follow-up discussion might appear on the
[CT policy list](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/ct-policy).
Fredrik Strömberg provided valuable feedback on this story, which is sponsored
by my
[System Transparency](https://www.system-transparency.org/)
employment at Mullvad VPN.
|
