any one getting this error today?
The site's security certificate has expired!
You attempted to reach login.yahoo.com, but the server presented an expired certificate. No information is available to indicate whether that certificate has been compromised since its expiration. This means Google Chrome cannot guarantee that you are communicating with login.yahoo.com and not an attacker. You should not proceed.
An SSL certificate has an expiry time. login.yahoo.com expires January, 4th next year (2011).
Your browser compares this date with your local system's date. So check, if your system clock isn't wrong.
Related
We have a domain with Let's encrypt certificates which are renewed every three months. However every time the certificate is near its expiry (today is 11th July, the certificate expires 21st July), I am receiving an email from Apple:
Apple Developer
Dear Admin,
Your website domain that uses Apple Pay has an SSL certificate that expires on Jul 21, 2022. After automatically trying to reverify your domain, we found that this SSL certificate has not been updated. Your domain is automatically checked 30 days, 15 days, and 7 days before this expiration date.
If you have an updated SSL certificate and the domain hasn't been successfully verified 7 days before expiration, please revalidate it manually by Jul 21, 2022 in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles to ensure uninterrupted use of Apple Pay on your website.
However once the certificate is renewed, I always have to login into Apple developer console, download new apple-developer-merchantid-domain-association.txt and deploy it again to our website.
This is time consuming and inefficient. Is there other way to do this instead of reuploading this file every three months?
The current line of thinking is to renew certificates every 90 days. Apple is automatically checking, per your email, at 60, 75, and 82 days.
If you altered your Let’s Encrypt automation to renew your certificate every 50 days, Apple’s automatic checks should resolve the issue.
Per Apple's documentation:
If you update the SSL certificate before it expires, Apple detects the renewed certificate and the domain remains verified. No further action is required on your part.
Recently I found myself working with Guzzle while making requests to another server to post and fetch some data, in some cases, tokens. But I was getting certificate invalid error and I even tried to get a new .pem certificate, but Guzzle was still not accepting and kept throwing that error. So finally, I did what the "Internet" said:
$guzzleClient = new Client([
'verify' => false
]);
Now although this solution works, I am not sure how insecure it can get. Do I need to worry? If yes, in what scenarios?
well this is a big problem if you are for example
having login system on the request you are sending using guzzle
having payment/checkout on the request
basically any sensitive data being passed to the other server
because when you pass data without SSL certificate then your requests might get caught by malicious programs like
BurbSuite / WireShark , cain and abel / EtterCap
as these programs are Sniffing programs and anyone can get a version from the internet as they are open sourced and every thing going without SSL can be intercepted by the hacker using the tools mentioned above and the hacker can look to the entire request in plaintext! so its highly recommended to use SSL connection when passing sensitive data
Worth Mentioning : now a days even SSL isn't very secure because hackers can remove it using SSLStrip tool but believe me SSL will make it much harder for them to get to your request because if they used it your website sometimes will make non-completed requests and it will notify the user that the network isn't secure this will make it very hard for the hacker to get the user's data,
TLS/SSL in common configurations is meant to give you three things:
confidentiality - no third party is able to read the messages sent and received,
integrity - no third party is able to modify the messages sent and received,
server authentication - you know who are you talking to.
What you do with setting verify to false is disabling the certificate verification. It immediately disables the server authentication feature and enables loosing confidentiality and integrity too when facing an active attacker that has access to your data stream.
How is that?
First of all TLS/SSL relieas on Public Key Infrastructure. Without going into too much details: you hold on your machine a set of certificates of so called Certification Authorities (CA) whom you trust. When you open a new communication to a service, you get the services certificates and in the process of verification you validate amongst other things if the certificate belongs to a CA you trust. If yes, then the communication may proceed. If no, then the communication channel is closed.
Attack patterns
Disabling certificate verification allows for Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks than can easily be performed in your local network (e.g. via ARP poisoning attacks), in the local network of the service you are calling or in the network between. As we usually do not trust the network completely, we tend to verify.
Imagine me performing an attack on you. I have performed ARP poisoning, now I can see all your traffic. It's encrypted, isn't it? Well, not obviously. The TCP handshake and TLS handshake you believe you have performed with the target service - you have performed with me. I have presented you not the certificate of the target service, as I am unable to fake it, but my own. But you did not validate it to reject it. I have opened a connection between me and the target service on your behalf too so I can look into the decrypted traffic, modify if necessary and reply to you to make you believe everything is ok.
First of all - all your secrets are belong to me. Second of all - I am able to perform attacks on both you and the target service (which might have been secured by authentication mechanisms, but now is not).
How to fix this?
In XXI century there should be little reason to disable TLS verification anywhere. Configuring it to work properly might be a pain though, even more when you are doing it for the first time. From my experience the most common issues in the micro service world are:
the target certificate is self-signed,
you are missing a CA root certificate in your trust store,
the microservice does provide his certificate, but does not provide an intermediate CA certificate.
It's hard to guess what your issue is. We would need to dig deeper.
While the other answers points out some really good point about how important SSL/TLS is, your connection is still encrypted and the remote endpoint you're using has https:// in it as well. So you're not entirely disabling SSL when you set verify to false if I'm not mistken. It's just less secure since that you're not verifying the certificate of the remote server if they are signed by a Certificate Authority (CA) using the CA bundle.
Do you need to worry?
If this is something on your production, ideally you'd want things to be secure and configured correctly, so yes.
By not verifying the certificate, like Marek Puchalski mentioned, there's possibility of the server might not be the one you think it is and allows mitm (man in the middle) attack as well. More about mitm here, and peer verification here.
Why is it happening & how do you fix it?
Most common issue is misconfigured server, especially PHP configuration. You can fix your PHP configuration following this guide, where you'll be using adding the CA root certificates bundle to your configuration. Alternatively you can add this to Guzzle.
Another common issue is, the remote server is using a self-signed certificate. Even if you configured your CA bundle in your trustedstore, this certificate can't be trusted since it's not signed by a trusted CA. So the server needs to configure a SSL certificated signed by a CA. If that's not possible, you can manually trust this CA root, however this comes with some security concerns as well.
Hope this helped :)
I'm developing an app for a non-tech client that has outsourced the backend to another developer. We'll be launching the app under 7 different branded app, over a series of weeks. Each app is exactly the same, sans for the domain the API end points are on (IIS hosted).
As part of our security, we validate the SSL certificate when we connect to the API, and ensure the key returned by the API server matches our hardcoded version of it, as to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks to sniff our REST calls. We have this functioning now for the current server (1 of 7 to be rolled out).
We've asked the backend guys to provide the certificates for the remaining 6 sites, so we can deploy the apps with the expected keys. However, they claim that as they will be rolling out the sites individually over the coming weeks, each time they bring a new a new site online, they said they are "updating the SSL certificate" which is required as they are "using SNI on the server, so each time a new site is added, the certificate will change, and the hardcoded validation for the existing sites will break".
Now whilst I'm no dummy, I'm also not a server admin, and only 99.9% sure that the SNI configuration to support another cert on the server, will not have any affect on the current certs already hosted for the existing domains. As a result, I wanted to explicitly confirm that the cert key we're validating as part of the SSL auth, is not going to change with each revision of the SNI config. The backend devs have essentially shut us down claiming we're paranoid, and going "beyond what is required" and to not expect "the same security a the major players offer" (as I mentioned that any decent commercial app validates its connection).
Is anyone able to confirm (or correct) my understanding of SNI as it relates to the certs, primarily that as they bring new sites online, that changes to the SNI have 0 impact on the existing certs for the current sites?
Edit: Whilst the use of multi-domain certs would regenerate the key, we can assume that they could generate/re-issue a multi-domain cert now in advance of the domains coming online. The question of if it's affected by the SNI config remains.
"updating the SSL certificate" which is required as they are "using SNI on the server, so each time a new site is added, the certificate will change, and the hardcoded validation for the existing sites will break".
This is a weird argument. The point of SNI is that they can have multiple sites (domains) on the same IP address where each has its own certificate. If they add a new site only a new certificate for the new domain need to be created and all the other certificates will continue to work: a client using SNI will tell which site it wants to visit and the server then can pick the appropriate certificate. If they instead could not rely on SNI then they would have to use certificates which cover all sites on the same IP address.
So while it can be that they have some process which requires this kind of reissuing certificates it is not a requirement because of use of SNI, but only because they designed their process this way.
I want my site to be secure using HTTPS protocols. I managed to make a self-signed key to be trustedCertEntry as I made my own CA certificate, with different CN, which I used to sign my own private certificate.
It works smooth testing it with openssl with something like:
openssl s_client -connect www.mydomain.com:80 -tls1 -state
Thus, browser doesn't report a certificate self-signed error, as it sees a different CA.
But I get a SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER error. Still it seems logical to me as nobody knows me as a CA. It is supposed to work if user adds exception for me.
I thought this trick was acceptable and it was like many https compliant sites were working, as you may visit a unknown site and you want to encrypt communications from 3rd party watchers but trust that page.
After trying to get a clear response for it, beyond coding that I will find resources, my question is:
If I want to have a site, for which the users don't have to add an exception in the first visit, do I have to get a certificate from a "world-known" CA? Or am I missing a solution for self-signing my certificate with my own CA certificate?
Technically speaking, the answer is: Yes, you will have to get a certificate from a CA that is trusted by your users' browsers via a chain of intermediary CA's that ends at an inherently trusted root CA. The accepted answer to this question explains how it works: SSL Certificate framework 101: How does the browser actually verify the validity of a given server certificate?
Having said that, if your "only" concern is to provide encrypted connections, you might be able to leverage the Let's Encrypt CA, which provides free certificates for that purpose. Those certificates will be only domain-validated, which provides a weaker kind of assurance of identity than, for example, an Extended Validation Certificate.
Depending on the browser used, there will be minimal difference in user experience between DV and EV certificates. For Safari, the user will see a grey padlock in the address bar for the lower assurance DV-backed sites, like this:
and a green padlock when higher identity assurance is provided, like this:
Whether the former is good enough for you (or your customers) depends on your situation.
In case you want to understand what "inherently trusted" actually means for web browsers, see this blog post: Who your browser trusts, and how to control it.
I've noticed that this question has been asked several times but none of the results provide a solution to my problem.
I am developing a website for a client. The website is http://www.entirelyintimate.com.
It is a dropshipping website that uses Paypal Pro for their checkout process.
We purchased and installed the SSL from Godaddy.
According to an SSL checker website, the chain and installation appears to be correct.
I removed all insecure content on the pages that need to be secured
1 example - https://www.entirelyintimate.com/checkout-complete
I checked the page on - whynopadlock.com and it appears to be good there.
But... I still receive the dreaded Error code: sec_error_revoked_certificate
I am pretty new to SSL so I could be overlooking something basic. Any help would be appreciated.
p.s. This community is really great. I come lurking here all of the time when I have questions. I do an automatic click when I see this website in the Google search results.
sec_error_revoked_certificate means that the certificate has been revoked.
Your certificate may be issued by a CA trusted by your browser and valid in time, but the CA may have revoked it, and your client is checking for revocation (which is recommended).
Certificate revocation is a mechanism that makes it possible to invalidate a certificate before its normal expiry time. Checking for revocation can be done via CRL or OCSP by the clients.
Typically, certificates are revoked upon request from the entity corresponding to that cert (i.e. the user or the server admin) if the private key has been compromised, if the CA decides the validating data wasn't sufficient after all, or perhaps automatically if the CA issues another certificate to the same entity.
A possible cause for the problem could be that you might have re-keyed your certificate, thereby making your CA revoke the old one. If you're still using the old one inadvertently (perhaps it's still available to your server in its keystore or equivalent) this error could happen.
Qualys SSL Labs's SSL checker is generally a more complete tool for checking your SSL/TLS configuration. It seems to indicate that your certificate has indeed been revoked.
The error cause is exactly as stated: the security certificate has been revoked.
You can verify it here by entering the checkout page address.
I am afraid you will need to check this with GoDaddy.
0x4F0DB30A63474B: revoked
This Update: Sep 11 17:52:23 2012 GMT
Next Update: Sep 11 23:52:23 2012 GMT
Reason: cessationOfOperation
Revocation Time: Sep 10 01:39:38 2012 GMT