Welcome Guest. | Log In | Register | Membership Benefits

The Future of Web Authentication

Many security experts believe the Internet's trust model is broken. Figuring out how to fix it will take time and collaboration

Jan 30, 2012 | 08:00 AM | 

By Ericka Chickowski

Web authentication protocols took a pounding last year. Problems with the Secure Sockets Layer and Transport Layer Security protocols, which encrypt all sorts of communication among websites, were at the center of several security breaches. Hacks of high-profile certificate authority providers undermined the security of some of the Internet's biggest brands, including Google and Yahoo; new man-in-the-middle attacks hit the Web; and the powerful Beast vulnerability exposed the most commonly used versions of SSL and TLS.

Taken as a whole, it appears the Internet's trust model is broken. However, many security experts aren't ready to scrap SSL. Rather than starting over, they recommend fixing the existing system. It's clear that we need to evolve the way we authenticate on the Web; the question is, how?

"Anything that requires us to migrate the entire Internet to a different protocol isn't going to happen," says Moxie Marlinspike, a noted SSL researcher and co-founder of Whisper Systems, a mobile security software developer that Twitter acquired in November. "Right now, particularly in this space, ideas are easy, but it's getting it done that's the hard part."

How We Got Here

Netscape created SSL in the 1990s as a way to encrypt sensitive information transmitted as part of online transactions--from login credentials to financial transactions. TLS 1.0 came out in 1999 (nearly identical to the then-current SSL version), and new versions have followed. While TLS is the most advanced protocol for authenticating online transactions, common parlance often refers to it as SSL.

Web authentication rests on the integrity of the certificate authorities. CAs check the identities of websites and issue public key infrastructure certificates, which are then used to verify websites' authenticity and enable the transmission of encrypted information between Web browsers and SSL servers.

When a person wants to view or interact with an HTTPS site--a secure site that uses the SSL protocol--the Web browser requests that the Web server identify itself. The server provides a copy of its SSL certificate, and the browser decides if it trusts the certificate and the site before agreeing to exchange encrypted data (see diagram, below).

The weak links in the SSL scheme are that there's no overarching system or authority to rate, rank, or approve CAs, and there are no standards for how certificates are issued. It's up to the browser vendor to decide whether to trust a specific CA, and those vendors haven't been careful enough with those decisions.

HowSSL certificates enable encryption

1 |  2 |  3 |  Next Page » 



Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

Dark Reading encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, Dark Reading moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. Dark Reading further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
Subscribe to RSS












Featured Webcasts
Featured Whitepapers
Featured Reports
Bugs
ENTERPRISE VULNERABILITIES
Vulnerability:ssl-vpn end-point interrogator/installer activex control
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:High
Description:Stack-based buffer overflow in SonicWALL SSL-VPN End-Point Interrogator/Installer ActiveX control (Aventail.EPInstaller) before 10.5.2 and 10.0.5 hotfix 3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via long (1) CabURL and (2) Location arguments to the Install3rdPartyComponent method.
Vulnerability:gvim
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:High
Description:Untrusted search path vulnerability in VIM Development Group GVim before 7.3.034, and possibly other versions before 7.3.46, allows local users, and possibly remote attackers, to execute arbitrary code and conduct DLL hijacking attacks via a Trojan horse User32.dll or other DLL that is located in the same folder as a .TXT file. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information.
Vulnerability:cforms
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:Medium
Description:Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in wp-content/plugins/cforms/lib_ajax.php in cforms WordPress plugin 11.5 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) rs and (2) rsargs[] parameters.
Vulnerability:links, wsn links, wsn links
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:High
Description:Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in search.php in WSN Links 5.0.x before 5.0.81, 5.1.x before 5.1.51, and 6.0.x before 6.0.1 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) namecondition or (2) namesearch parameter.
Vulnerability:deluxebb
Published:2010-11-03
Severity:Medium
Description:SQL injection vulnerability in misc.php in DeluxeBB 1.3, and possibly earlier, when magic_quotes_gpc is disabled, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the xthedateformat parameter in a register action, a different vector than CVE-2005-2989, CVE-2006-2503, and CVE-2009-1033.



Briefing Centers
POWERFUL INFORMATION
AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
(SPONSORED LINKS)