From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 2 08:45:12 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D9D106566C for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:45:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:3fd3:cd67:fafa:3d78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6822F8FC1D for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seedling.black-earth.co.uk (seedling.black-earth.co.uk [81.187.76.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p328j7As018587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 09:45:07 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk p328j7As018587 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infracaninophile.co.uk; s=201001-infracaninophile; t=1301733907; bh=zcTEbj0S6nMDePRUirFZhWb+EClyrnEPW5LXXw/92h8=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc:Content-Type:Date:From:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Mime-Version:References:To; z=Message-ID:=20<4D96E20A.8050409@infracaninophile.co.uk>|Date:=20S at,=2002=20Apr=202011=2009:44:58=20+0100|From:=20Matthew=20Seaman= 20|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0=20(M acintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B=20en-US=3B=20r v:1.9.2.15)=20Gecko/20110303=20Thunderbird/3.1.9|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20freebsd-security=20|Subject :=20Re:=20SSL=20is=20broken=20on=20FreeBSD|References:=20<20110401 153300.GA85392@guilt.hydra>=09=09<4D9639B0.1070302@FreeBSD.org>=09=0 9<4D963C23.4080100@FreeBSD.org>=09=09<20110401212648.GK86409@numachi .com>=09=09<4D9654BC.6040808@supsi.ch>=20<20110401225033.GL86409@numac hi.com>=20<20110401233009.GA87214@guilt.hydra>|In-Reply-To:=20<201 10401233009.GA87214@guilt.hydra>|X-Enigmail-Version:=201.1.1|OpenP GP:=20id=3D60AE908C|Content-Type:=20multipart/signed=3B=20micalg=3 Dpgp-sha1=3B=0D=0A=20protocol=3D"application/pgp-signature"=3B=0D= 0A=20boundary=3D"------------enig48C7FAEDD4E1D3A867685A0B"; b=r+M/EnDAaTuW9pCui1u2rq1Y1Hyt9Fxg0EcXLJkyfHIuUqvTI3jWoxhM5qu/7QcN1 wIt3ZNLv74EY+L4aVoRQd3xxUAHO3zrQsGqLReaoBxR42fWfiiUr9b0dMnmKyM4vgQ TpIZXXVakl3lhDiWZbPLQ2T3GhmDDdc2Ian3FxbE= Message-ID: <4D96E20A.8050409@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:44:58 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-security References: <20110401153300.GA85392@guilt.hydra> <4D9639B0.1070302@FreeBSD.org> <4D963C23.4080100@FreeBSD.org> <20110401212648.GK86409@numachi.com> <4D9654BC.6040808@supsi.ch> <20110401225033.GL86409@numachi.com> <20110401233009.GA87214@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20110401233009.GA87214@guilt.hydra> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=60AE908C Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig48C7FAEDD4E1D3A867685A0B" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97 at lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_FAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk Subject: Re: SSL is broken on FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 08:45:12 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig48C7FAEDD4E1D3A867685A0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/04/2011 00:30, Chad Perrin wrote: > I don't think that either of the two options currently under discussion= > (quietly provide a "trusted" CA list or quietly failing to provide one)= > is optimal. In the best-case scenario, I guess there would be some > self-evident system for letting the user choose what to use, if anythin= g, > giving a very brief, glancing explanation of the meaning of trust in th= is > circumstance. Failing that -- given the options currently available to= > us without writing more software to do it differently in a way that's > compatible with how we manage our OSes -- I don't much care whether a > list of "trusted" CAs is included or not. The important thing here is > knowledge, and both approaches under discussion fail to impart any > knowledge upon the user, so it's six of one and half a dozen of the > other. >=20 > I'm open to being convinced it really matters, though, if someone has a= n > argument more compelling than Istvan's. >=20 > (This ignores the notion that there are simply better ways to validate > certs than via CA trust, which is a somewhat separate issue.) There's a point here that no-one has explored. Yes, FireFox, Chrome, IE all come with a pre-configured list of trusted CAs. That is the list of CAs that those vendors think their users should trust /to validate websites/. This is a solution (maybe not a particularly satisfying one) for the problem of establishing trust between a site and a potentially very large audience of subscribers without having to have some sort of individual verification procedure between each user and the site: something which is clearly impractical. What are the applications[*] that a central CA store provided by the openssl libraries are supposed to provide validation for? Well, it could be anything that uses SSL/TLS. Why should we assume that it is appropriate to trust the same set of CAs as are used to validate websites? Much of the time, that is exactly what you don't want to do -- frequently you only want to trust a small private group, where you know all the other parties already. In this case, having system updates gratuitously install some other set of CA certs is a gross security violation. FreeBSD doesn't assume anything much about the way anyone is going to use it. This comes as a bit of a shock to many users of other OSes, who are used to something much more pre-configured to specific use cases. This is a gap that PC-BSD fills. Personally, I'd be quite happy describing PC-BSD as a "distro" of FreeBSD aimed at desktop users, although I don't know what the PC-BSD folks would think of that. Cheers Matthew [*] In fact, most applications that use SSL/TLS will have their own facilities for keeping a chain of trusted CAs outside /etc/ssl. --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW --------------enig48C7FAEDD4E1D3A867685A0B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2W4hIACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxeywCfaTAtdBiJoH5c3iyG2PSuE+h6 UAoAn2yf6D7Ooarb2F/vHDFc8njlPwdp =lAin -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig48C7FAEDD4E1D3A867685A0B--