alt Hacker NewsI am shocked that one of the private keys was literally “4”. Anyone could have broken into this. I really hope there is an industry-wide effort to stop things like this in the future.... but I doubt it.
Replies
crossroadsguy • today at 7:12 PM
True randomness respected.
sophacles • today at 6:05 PM
Of all the things... i never expected there to be an XKCD for this: https://xkcd.com/221/
There is a variety of projects and researchers scanning for weak keys; possibly that's how this was found (haven't seen anything on that). These certs existed for a year and a half; that's bad but could be worse still.
One of the issues with sub-CAs (well, X509 certs in general) is that they can be ghosts in that there's no way you'll ever get it as a response on a TLS connection, so automated scanners on that won't find it.
CT should cover this (i.e. expose the cert so you can check for weak keys), but I have no idea if/how CT works for sub-CAs. [ed.: see below, doesn't seem to be in CT]
[ed.: these are technically sub-CAs, but rather cross-signed for bootstrapping a new root CA. Thanks @agwa for pointing that out.]