Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Operations

11/17/2016
06:15 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

As Deadline Looms, 35 Percent Of Web Sites Still Rely On SHA-1

Over 60 million web sites are relying on a hashing algorithm that will be blocked by major browsers starting Jan 1.

A surprising 35 percent of websites around the world are still using SHA-1 though barely 45 days remain before some of the major browsers stop trusting certificates signed with the hash algorithm altogether.

The estimate, from cybersecurity vendor Venafi, is based on an analysis of data from some 11 million publicly visible websites.

The analysis showed that while most of the popular websites have migrated away from SHA-1, a troublingly large number has not. Based on recent numbers from Netcraft showing over 173 million active websites on the Internet, Venafi extrapolated its results to mean there are about 61 million sites that rely on the deprecated certificates.

Such sites can expect transactions and traffic to be disrupted in multiple ways starting January 1, 2017. Google, for instance, has said that its Chrome browser will drop all support for SHA-1 certificates starting that date. Chrome will block all certificates signed with the algorithm triggering a fatal network error, Google has previously warned.

Like Mozilla and the others, Google stopped treating SHA-1 certificates as secure a long time ago, and has been discontinuing support for it in a phased manner. Starting earlier this year, Chrome has displayed a certificate error warning for sites using SHA-1 certificates that were issued on or after January 1, 2016. That is the date before which all certificate authorities were supposed to stop issuing SHA-1 certificates.

Through the year, Google has been ramping up those warnings with a view to weaning websites off SHA-1 completely by the end of this year.

Others have been following a similar approach. Starting with Windows 10 Anniversary Update, Microsoft’s Edge and Internet Explorer browsers have been removing the address bar lock icon on sites relying on SHA-1. Though the sites have continued to work, the browsers no longer consider them to be secure. That will change further in Feb 2017 when both browsers will block SHA-1-signed certificates altogether.

The moves by the browser makers are a response to long-standing concerns over SHA-1 security. Noted security researchers such as cryptography expert Bruce Schneier have warned about SHA-1 being vulnerable to collision attacks — where two messages generate the same hash value — as  far back as 2005.

Last year, researchers from the national research institute for math and computer science in the Netherlands, France’s Inria, and the Nayang Technology University in Singapore, showed how a full-scale collision attack on SHA-1 could be carried out for about $100,000 using cloud based hardware. The research showed that attacks against SHA-1 were not only possible sooner than most experts had anticipated, but also could be performed at much lower cost as well.

The transition deadline for SHA-1 is long overdue, says Kevin Bocek, vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi. The National Institute of Standards and Technology called for the elimination of SHA-1 in 2006, over security concerns, he notes.

“Successful attacks on SHA-1 are well within reach of nation states and other sophisticated adversaries, and these allow them to ‘mint’ trusted SHA-1 certificates,” Bocek says.

As one example of the damage that can be caused by such certificate counterfeiting, Bocek points to a 2012 incident where attackers were able to widely distribute the Flame malware sample using forged Microsoft MD5 certificates.

The key to getting rid of SHA-1 certificates is figuring out how and where they are being used, he says. Large organizations are especially likely to have little visibility over the extent to which such certificates are being used, and need to have a plan for discovering and eliminating them, he says.

Related stories:

 

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5216
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.9.0, 5.2.0, and 6.3.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection. Upon seei...
CVE-2020-5217
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.8.0, 5.1.0, and 6.2.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a semicolon could be injected leading to directive injection. This could b...
CVE-2020-5223
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In PrivateBin versions 1.2.0 before 1.2.2, and 1.3.0 before 1.3.2, a persistent XSS attack is possible. Under certain conditions, a user provided attachment file name can inject HTML leading to a persistent Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The vulnerability has been fixed in PrivateBin v1.3...
CVE-2019-20399
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A timing vulnerability in the Scalar::check_overflow function in Parity libsecp256k1-rs before 0.3.1 potentially allows an attacker to leak information via a side-channel attack.
CVE-2020-7915
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An issue was discovered on Eaton 5P 850 devices. The Ubicacion SAI field allows XSS attacks by an administrator.