Fake UserTrust.com Certificates in Chrome?Expired certificate errors - Ubuntu 16.04 LTSWhen will Ubuntu include Digital Certificates from Govt of India Root CA PKI CCA India 2007?Problem with certificatesManage Certificates in Google Chrome“Connection is Untrusted ” error in FirefoxVerifying certificates signed by intermediate CAWhere are these certificates coming from?Certificates on Web with FirefoxChrome untrusted certificatesMessed-up with ca-certificates/ How to restore back to defaulthow to revoke x.509 certificates?

Rotated Position of Integers

When leasing/renting out an owned property, is there a standard ratio between monthly rent and the mortgage?

Is the capacitor drawn or wired wrongly?

Can an old DSLR be upgraded to match modern smartphone image quality

Cryptography and patents

Can The Malloreon be read without first reading The Belgariad?

Strange math syntax in old basic listing

What's the most polite way to tell a manager "shut up and let me work"?

What is the right way to float a home lab?

Is evaporation a kind of phase transition?

What are the problems in teaching guitar via Skype?

How to decline physical affection from a child whose parents are pressuring them?

Why were the Night's Watch required to be celibate?

Is there any Biblical Basis for 400 years of silence between Old and New Testament?

Is there a way to save this session?

PhD student with mental health issues and bad performance

What does it mean by "d-ism of Leibniz" and "dotage of Newton" in simple English?

Is there a term for this?

What is the most important characteristic of New Weird as a genre?

Is it possible to kill all life on Earth?

Explain Ant-Man's "not it" scene from Avengers: Endgame

Alleged sexist comments charges presented toward me

Looking after a wayward brother in mother's will

Should this code fail to compile in C++17?

Fake UserTrust.com Certificates in Chrome?

Expired certificate errors - Ubuntu 16.04 LTSWhen will Ubuntu include Digital Certificates from Govt of India Root CA PKI CCA India 2007?Problem with certificatesManage Certificates in Google Chrome“Connection is Untrusted ” error in FirefoxVerifying certificates signed by intermediate CAWhere are these certificates coming from?Certificates on Web with FirefoxChrome untrusted certificatesMessed-up with ca-certificates/ How to restore back to defaulthow to revoke x.509 certificates?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

I was trying to install a SSL certificate, when I digged into Chrome Settings and looked at the installed ones (servers tab).

Those are marked as Not Safe, and they are related to mail.google.com, login.skype.com, login.live.com, addons.mozilla.org, and a few more, inside a folder named "Google Ldt.".

For example,

which results in,

Common Name: mail.google.com
Subject Alternative Names: mail.google.com, www.mail.google.com
Organization: Google Ltd.
Organization Unit: Tech Dept.
Locality: English
State: Florida
Country: US
Valid From: March 14, 2011
Valid To: March 14, 2014
Issuer: UTN-USERFirst-Hardware, The USERTRUST Network Write review of Comodo
Key Size: 2048 bit
Serial Number: 047ecbe9fca55f7bd09eae36e10cae1e

Are they safe?

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

add a comment |

I was trying to install a SSL certificate, when I digged into Chrome Settings and looked at the installed ones (servers tab).

Those are marked as Not Safe, and they are related to mail.google.com, login.skype.com, login.live.com, addons.mozilla.org, and a few more, inside a folder named "Google Ldt.".

For example,

which results in,

Common Name: mail.google.com
Subject Alternative Names: mail.google.com, www.mail.google.com
Organization: Google Ltd.
Organization Unit: Tech Dept.
Locality: English
State: Florida
Country: US
Valid From: March 14, 2011
Valid To: March 14, 2014
Issuer: UTN-USERFirst-Hardware, The USERTRUST Network Write review of Comodo
Key Size: 2048 bit
Serial Number: 047ecbe9fca55f7bd09eae36e10cae1e

Are they safe?

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

add a comment |

I was trying to install a SSL certificate, when I digged into Chrome Settings and looked at the installed ones (servers tab).

Those are marked as Not Safe, and they are related to mail.google.com, login.skype.com, login.live.com, addons.mozilla.org, and a few more, inside a folder named "Google Ldt.".

For example,

which results in,

Common Name: mail.google.com
Subject Alternative Names: mail.google.com, www.mail.google.com
Organization: Google Ltd.
Organization Unit: Tech Dept.
Locality: English
State: Florida
Country: US
Valid From: March 14, 2011
Valid To: March 14, 2014
Issuer: UTN-USERFirst-Hardware, The USERTRUST Network Write review of Comodo
Key Size: 2048 bit
Serial Number: 047ecbe9fca55f7bd09eae36e10cae1e

Are they safe?

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

I was trying to install a SSL certificate, when I digged into Chrome Settings and looked at the installed ones (servers tab).

Those are marked as Not Safe, and they are related to mail.google.com, login.skype.com, login.live.com, addons.mozilla.org, and a few more, inside a folder named "Google Ldt.".

For example,

which results in,

Common Name: mail.google.com
Subject Alternative Names: mail.google.com, www.mail.google.com
Organization: Google Ltd.
Organization Unit: Tech Dept.
Locality: English
State: Florida
Country: US
Valid From: March 14, 2011
Valid To: March 14, 2014
Issuer: UTN-USERFirst-Hardware, The USERTRUST Network Write review of Comodo
Key Size: 2048 bit
Serial Number: 047ecbe9fca55f7bd09eae36e10cae1e

Are they safe?

google-chrome ssl openssl certificates

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

asked Jul 15 '14 at 6:10

whitenoisedb

3183917

add a comment |

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

They are NOT safe and that is why they are marked as Untrusted. These were bogus certificates. See this article on EFF:

On March 15th, an HTTPS/TLS Certificate Authority (CA) was tricked into issuing fraudulent certificates that posed a dire risk to Internet security. Based on currently available information, the incident got close to — but was not quite — an Internet-wide security meltdown. As this post will explain, these events show why we urgently need to start reinforcing the system that is currently used to authenticate and identify secure websites and email systems.

There is a post up on the Tor Project's blog by Jacob Appelbaum, analyzing the revocation of a number of HTTPS certificates last week. Patches to the major web browsers blacklisted a number of TLS certificates that were issued after hackers broke into a Certificate Authority. Appelbaum and others were able to cross-reference the blacklisted certificates' serial numbers against a comprehensive collection of Certificate Revocation Lists (these CRL URLs were obtained by querying EFF's SSL Observatory databases) to learn which CA had been affected.

The answer was the UserTrust "UTN-USERFirst-Hardware" certificate owned by Comodo, one of the largest CAs on the web. Comodo has now published a statement about the improperly issued certs, which were for extremely high-value domains including google.com, login.yahoo.com and addons.mozilla.org (this last domain could be used to trojan any system that was installing a new Firefox extension, though updates to previously installed extensions have a second layer of protection from XPI signatures). One cert was for "global trustee" — not a domain name. That was probably a malicious CA certificate that could be used to flawlessly impersonate any domain on the Web.

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

Thanks for the information. I've checked what certificates Gmail was using by clicking on the left on the address bar and I'm safe. It seems that Chrome put those bugus ones in a blacklist, but, the fact that they are there, means that I was infected sometime in the past?

– whitenoisedb
Jul 15 '14 at 7:36

@redraw no, they are there by default. You can test by doing a fresh install on a VM. My guess is that Google adds them to the untrusted list because certs were issued for Google domains and the CA was a well-known and trusted one then.

– muru
Jul 15 '14 at 7:39

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f497923%2ffake-usertrust-com-certificates-in-chrome%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

They are NOT safe and that is why they are marked as Untrusted. These were bogus certificates. See this article on EFF:

On March 15th, an HTTPS/TLS Certificate Authority (CA) was tricked into issuing fraudulent certificates that posed a dire risk to Internet security. Based on currently available information, the incident got close to — but was not quite — an Internet-wide security meltdown. As this post will explain, these events show why we urgently need to start reinforcing the system that is currently used to authenticate and identify secure websites and email systems.

There is a post up on the Tor Project's blog by Jacob Appelbaum, analyzing the revocation of a number of HTTPS certificates last week. Patches to the major web browsers blacklisted a number of TLS certificates that were issued after hackers broke into a Certificate Authority. Appelbaum and others were able to cross-reference the blacklisted certificates' serial numbers against a comprehensive collection of Certificate Revocation Lists (these CRL URLs were obtained by querying EFF's SSL Observatory databases) to learn which CA had been affected.

The answer was the UserTrust "UTN-USERFirst-Hardware" certificate owned by Comodo, one of the largest CAs on the web. Comodo has now published a statement about the improperly issued certs, which were for extremely high-value domains including google.com, login.yahoo.com and addons.mozilla.org (this last domain could be used to trojan any system that was installing a new Firefox extension, though updates to previously installed extensions have a second layer of protection from XPI signatures). One cert was for "global trustee" — not a domain name. That was probably a malicious CA certificate that could be used to flawlessly impersonate any domain on the Web.

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

Thanks for the information. I've checked what certificates Gmail was using by clicking on the left on the address bar and I'm safe. It seems that Chrome put those bugus ones in a blacklist, but, the fact that they are there, means that I was infected sometime in the past?

– whitenoisedb
Jul 15 '14 at 7:36

@redraw no, they are there by default. You can test by doing a fresh install on a VM. My guess is that Google adds them to the untrusted list because certs were issued for Google domains and the CA was a well-known and trusted one then.

– muru
Jul 15 '14 at 7:39

add a comment |

They are NOT safe and that is why they are marked as Untrusted. These were bogus certificates. See this article on EFF:

On March 15th, an HTTPS/TLS Certificate Authority (CA) was tricked into issuing fraudulent certificates that posed a dire risk to Internet security. Based on currently available information, the incident got close to — but was not quite — an Internet-wide security meltdown. As this post will explain, these events show why we urgently need to start reinforcing the system that is currently used to authenticate and identify secure websites and email systems.

There is a post up on the Tor Project's blog by Jacob Appelbaum, analyzing the revocation of a number of HTTPS certificates last week. Patches to the major web browsers blacklisted a number of TLS certificates that were issued after hackers broke into a Certificate Authority. Appelbaum and others were able to cross-reference the blacklisted certificates' serial numbers against a comprehensive collection of Certificate Revocation Lists (these CRL URLs were obtained by querying EFF's SSL Observatory databases) to learn which CA had been affected.

The answer was the UserTrust "UTN-USERFirst-Hardware" certificate owned by Comodo, one of the largest CAs on the web. Comodo has now published a statement about the improperly issued certs, which were for extremely high-value domains including google.com, login.yahoo.com and addons.mozilla.org (this last domain could be used to trojan any system that was installing a new Firefox extension, though updates to previously installed extensions have a second layer of protection from XPI signatures). One cert was for "global trustee" — not a domain name. That was probably a malicious CA certificate that could be used to flawlessly impersonate any domain on the Web.

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

Thanks for the information. I've checked what certificates Gmail was using by clicking on the left on the address bar and I'm safe. It seems that Chrome put those bugus ones in a blacklist, but, the fact that they are there, means that I was infected sometime in the past?

– whitenoisedb
Jul 15 '14 at 7:36

@redraw no, they are there by default. You can test by doing a fresh install on a VM. My guess is that Google adds them to the untrusted list because certs were issued for Google domains and the CA was a well-known and trusted one then.

– muru
Jul 15 '14 at 7:39

add a comment |

They are NOT safe and that is why they are marked as Untrusted. These were bogus certificates. See this article on EFF:

On March 15th, an HTTPS/TLS Certificate Authority (CA) was tricked into issuing fraudulent certificates that posed a dire risk to Internet security. Based on currently available information, the incident got close to — but was not quite — an Internet-wide security meltdown. As this post will explain, these events show why we urgently need to start reinforcing the system that is currently used to authenticate and identify secure websites and email systems.

There is a post up on the Tor Project's blog by Jacob Appelbaum, analyzing the revocation of a number of HTTPS certificates last week. Patches to the major web browsers blacklisted a number of TLS certificates that were issued after hackers broke into a Certificate Authority. Appelbaum and others were able to cross-reference the blacklisted certificates' serial numbers against a comprehensive collection of Certificate Revocation Lists (these CRL URLs were obtained by querying EFF's SSL Observatory databases) to learn which CA had been affected.

The answer was the UserTrust "UTN-USERFirst-Hardware" certificate owned by Comodo, one of the largest CAs on the web. Comodo has now published a statement about the improperly issued certs, which were for extremely high-value domains including google.com, login.yahoo.com and addons.mozilla.org (this last domain could be used to trojan any system that was installing a new Firefox extension, though updates to previously installed extensions have a second layer of protection from XPI signatures). One cert was for "global trustee" — not a domain name. That was probably a malicious CA certificate that could be used to flawlessly impersonate any domain on the Web.

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

They are NOT safe and that is why they are marked as Untrusted. These were bogus certificates. See this article on EFF:

On March 15th, an HTTPS/TLS Certificate Authority (CA) was tricked into issuing fraudulent certificates that posed a dire risk to Internet security. Based on currently available information, the incident got close to — but was not quite — an Internet-wide security meltdown. As this post will explain, these events show why we urgently need to start reinforcing the system that is currently used to authenticate and identify secure websites and email systems.

There is a post up on the Tor Project's blog by Jacob Appelbaum, analyzing the revocation of a number of HTTPS certificates last week. Patches to the major web browsers blacklisted a number of TLS certificates that were issued after hackers broke into a Certificate Authority. Appelbaum and others were able to cross-reference the blacklisted certificates' serial numbers against a comprehensive collection of Certificate Revocation Lists (these CRL URLs were obtained by querying EFF's SSL Observatory databases) to learn which CA had been affected.

The answer was the UserTrust "UTN-USERFirst-Hardware" certificate owned by Comodo, one of the largest CAs on the web. Comodo has now published a statement about the improperly issued certs, which were for extremely high-value domains including google.com, login.yahoo.com and addons.mozilla.org (this last domain could be used to trojan any system that was installing a new Firefox extension, though updates to previously installed extensions have a second layer of protection from XPI signatures). One cert was for "global trustee" — not a domain name. That was probably a malicious CA certificate that could be used to flawlessly impersonate any domain on the Web.

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

answered Jul 15 '14 at 6:19

muru

Thanks for the information. I've checked what certificates Gmail was using by clicking on the left on the address bar and I'm safe. It seems that Chrome put those bugus ones in a blacklist, but, the fact that they are there, means that I was infected sometime in the past?

– whitenoisedb
Jul 15 '14 at 7:36

@redraw no, they are there by default. You can test by doing a fresh install on a VM. My guess is that Google adds them to the untrusted list because certs were issued for Google domains and the CA was a well-known and trusted one then.

– muru
Jul 15 '14 at 7:39

add a comment |

Thanks for the information. I've checked what certificates Gmail was using by clicking on the left on the address bar and I'm safe. It seems that Chrome put those bugus ones in a blacklist, but, the fact that they are there, means that I was infected sometime in the past?

– whitenoisedb
Jul 15 '14 at 7:36

@redraw no, they are there by default. You can test by doing a fresh install on a VM. My guess is that Google adds them to the untrusted list because certs were issued for Google domains and the CA was a well-known and trusted one then.

– muru
Jul 15 '14 at 7:39

Thanks for the information. I've checked what certificates Gmail was using by clicking on the left on the address bar and I'm safe. It seems that Chrome put those bugus ones in a blacklist, but, the fact that they are there, means that I was infected sometime in the past?

– whitenoisedb
Jul 15 '14 at 7:36

@redraw no, they are there by default. You can test by doing a fresh install on a VM. My guess is that Google adds them to the untrusted list because certs were issued for Google domains and the CA was a well-known and trusted one then.

– muru
Jul 15 '14 at 7:39

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Bsrgvty

1 Answer
1

Your Answer

Post as a guest

1 Answer
1

1 Answer
1

Post as a guest

Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

1 Answer 1

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

1 Answer 1

1 Answer 1

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

1 Answer
1

1 Answer
1

1 Answer
1