NARAYAN KHADKA 9808415891: 05/07/20

Thursday, May 7, 2020

Sslmerge - Tool To Help You Build A Valid SSL Certificate Chain From The Root Certificate To The End-User Certificate

Is an open source tool to help you build a valid SSL certificate chain from the root certificate to the end-user certificate. Also can help you fix the incomplete certificate chain and download all missing CA certificates.

How To Use
It's simple:

# Clone this repository
git clone https://github.com/trimstray/sslmerge

# Go into the repository
cd sslmerge

# Install
./setup.sh install

# Run the app
sslmerge -i /data/certs -o /data/certs/chain.crt

symlink to bin/sslmerge is placed in /usr/local/bin
man page is placed in /usr/local/man/man8

Parameters
Provides the following options:

  Usage:
    sslmerge <option|long-option>

  Examples:
    sslmerge --in Root.crt --in Intermediate1.crt --in Server.crt --out bundle_chain_certs.crt
    sslmerge --in /tmp/certs --out bundle_chain_certs.crt --with-root
    sslmerge -i Server.crt -o bundle_chain_certs.crt

  Options:
        --help        show this message
        --debug       displays information on the screen (debug mode)
    -i, --in          add certificates to merge (certificate file, multiple files or directory with ssl certificates)
    -o, --out         saves the result (chain) to file
        --with-root   add root certificate to the certificate chain

How it works
Let's start with ssllabs certificate chain. They are delivered together with the sslmerge and can be found in the example/ssllabs.com directory which additionally contains the all directory (containing all the certificates needed to assemble the chain) and the server_certificate directory (containing only the server certificate).
The correct chain for the ssllabs.com domain (the result of the openssl command):

Certificate chain
 0 s:/C=US/ST=California/L=Redwood City/O=Qualys, Inc./CN=ssllabs.com
   i:/C=US/O=Entrust, Inc./OU=See www.entrust.net/legal-terms/OU=(c) 2012 Entrust, Inc. - for authorized use only/CN=Entrust Certification Authority - L1K
 1 s:/C=US/O=Entrust, Inc./OU=See www.entrust.net/legal-terms/OU=(c) 2012 Entrust, Inc. - for authorized use only/CN=Entrust Certification Authority - L1K
   i:/C=US/O=Entrust, Inc./OU=See www.entrust.net/legal-terms/OU=(c) 2009 Entrust, Inc. - for authorized use only/CN=Entrust Root Certification Authority - G2
 2 s:/C=US/O=Entrust, Inc./OU=See www.entrust.net/legal-terms/OU=(c) 2009 Entrust, Inc. - for authorized use only/CN=Entrust Root Certification Authority - G2
   i:/C=US/O=Entrust, Inc./OU=www.entrust.net/CPS is incorporated by reference/OU=(c) 2006 Entrust, Inc./CN=Entrust Root Certification Authority

The above code presents a full chain consisting of:

Identity Certificate (Server Certificate)
issued for ssllabs.com by Entrust Certification Authority - L1K
Intermediate Certificate
issued for Entrust Certification Authority - L1K by Entrust Root Certification Authority - G2
Intermediate Certificate
issued for Entrust Root Certification Authority - G2 by Entrust Root Certification Authority
Root Certificate (Self-Signed Certificate)
issued for Entrust Root Certification Authority by Entrust Root Certification Authority

Scenario 1
In this scenario, we will chain all delivered certificates. Example of running the tool:

Scenario 2
In this scenario, we only use the server certificate and use it to retrieve the remaining required certificates. Then, as above, we will combine all the provided certificates. Example of running the tool:

Certificate chain
In order to create a valid chain, you must provide the tool with all the necessary certificates. It will be:

Server Certificate
Intermediate CAs and Root CAs

This is very important because without it you will not be able to determine the beginning and end of the chain.
However, if you look inside the generated chain after generating with sslmerge, you will not find the root certificate there. Why?
Because self-signed root certificates need not/should not be included in web server configuration. They serve no purpose (clients will always ignore them) and they incur a slight performance (latency) penalty because they increase the size of the SSL handshake.
If you want to add a root certificate to the certificate chain, call the utility with the --with-root parameter.

Certification Paths
Sslmerge allows use of two certification paths:

Output comments
When generating the chain of certificates, sslmerge displays comments with information about certificates, including any errors.
Here is a list of all possibilities:

not found identity (end-user, server) certificate
The message is displayed in the absence of a server certificate that is the beginning of the chain. This is a unique case because in this situation the sslmerge ends its operation displaying only this information. The server certificate is the only certificate required to correctly create a chain. Without this certificate, the correct chain will not be created.

found correct identity (end-user, server) certificate
The reverse situation here - message displayed when a valid server certificate is found.

not found first intermediate certificate
This message appears when the first of the two intermediate certificates is not found. This information does not explicitly specify the absence of a second intermediate certificate and on the other hand it allows to determine whether the intermediate certificate to which the server certificate was signed exists. Additionally, it can be displayed if the second intermediate certificate has been delivered.

not found second intermediate certificate
Similar to the above, however, it concerns the second intermediate certificate. However, it is possible to create the chain correctly using the second certification path, e.g. using the first intermediate certificate and replacing the second with the main certificate.

one or more intermediate certificate not found
This message means that one or all of the required intermediate certificates are missing and displayed in the absence of the root certificate.

found 'n' correct intermediate certificate(s)
This message indicates the number of valid intermediate certificates.

not found correct root certificate
The lack of the root certificate is treated as a warning. Of course, when configuring certificates on the server side, it is not recommended to attach a root certificate, but if you create it with the sslmerge, it treats the chain as incomplete displaying information about the incorrect creation of the chain.

an empty CN field was found in one of the certificates
This message does not inform about the error and about the lack of the CN field what can happen with some certificates (look at example/google.com). Common Name field identifies the host name associated with the certificate. There is no requirement in RFC3280 for an Issuer DN to have a CN. Most CAs do include a CN in the Issuer DN, but some don't, such as this Equifax CA.

Requirements
Sslmerge uses external utilities to be installed before running:

openssl

Other

Contributing
See this.

Project architecture
See this.

Download Sslmerge

Related links

$$$ Bug Bounty $$$

What is Bug Bounty ?

A bug bounty program, also called a vulnerability rewards program (VRP), is a crowdsourcing initiative that rewards individuals for discovering and reporting software bugs. Bug bounty programs are often initiated to supplement internal code audits and penetration tests as part of an organization's vulnerability management strategy.

Many software vendors and websites run bug bounty programs, paying out cash rewards to software security researchers and white hat hackers who report software vulnerabilities that have the potential to be exploited. Bug reports must document enough information for for the organization offering the bounty to be able to reproduce the vulnerability. Typically, payment amounts are commensurate with the size of the organization, the difficulty in hacking the system and how much impact on users a bug might have.

Mozilla paid out a $3,000 flat rate bounty for bugs that fit its criteria, while Facebook has given out as much as $20,000 for a single bug report. Google paid Chrome operating system bug reporters a combined $700,000 in 2012 and Microsoft paid UK researcher James Forshaw $100,000 for an attack vulnerability in Windows 8.1. In 2016, Apple announced rewards that max out at $200,000 for a flaw in the iOS secure boot firmware components and up to $50,000 for execution of arbitrary code with kernel privileges or unauthorized iCloud access.

While the use of ethical hackers to find bugs can be very effective, such programs can also be controversial. To limit potential risk, some organizations are offering closed bug bounty programs that require an invitation. Apple, for example, has limited bug bounty participation to few dozen researchers.

Why (I Believe) WADA Was Not Hacked By The Russians

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion. I am not an expert in attribution. But as it turns out, not many people in the world are good at attribution. I know this post lacks real evidence and is mostly based on speculation.

Let's start with the main facts we know about the WADA hack, in chronological order:

1. Some point in time (August - September 2016), the WADA database has been hacked and exfiltrated

2. August 15th, "WADA has alerted their stakeholders that email phishing scams are being reported in connection with WADA and therefore asks its recipients to be careful" https://m.paralympic.org/news/wada-warns-stakeholders-phishing-scams
3. September 1st, the fancybear.net domain has been registered

   Domain Name: FANCYBEAR.NET
   ...
   Updated Date: 18-sep-2016
   Creation Date: 01-sep-2016

4. The content of the WADA hack has been published on the website
5. The @FancyBears and @FancyBearsHT Twitter accounts have been created and started to tweet on 12th September, reaching out to journalists
6. 12th September, Western media started headlines "Russia hacked WADA"

7. The leaked documents have been altered, states WADA https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-10/cyber-security-update-wadas-incident-response

The Threatconnect analysis

The only technical analysis on why Russia was behind the hack, can be read here: https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/fancy-bear-anti-doping-agency-phishing/

After reading this, I was able to collect the following main points:

It is Russia because Russian APT groups are capable of phishing
It is Russia because the phishing site "wada-awa[.]org was registered and uses a name server from ITitch[.]com, a domain registrar that FANCY BEAR actors recently used"
It is Russia because "Wada-arna[.]org and tas-cass[.]org were registered through and use name servers from Domains4bitcoins[.]com, a registrar that has also been associated with FANCY BEAR activity."
It is Russia, because "The registration of these domains on August 3rd and 8th, 2016 are consistent with the timeline in which the WADA recommended banning all Russian athletes from the Olympic and Paralympic games."
It is Russia, because "The use of 1&1 mail.com webmail addresses to register domains matches a TTP we previously identified for FANCY BEAR actors."

There is an interesting side-track in the article, the case of the @anpoland account. Let me deal with this at the end of this post.

My problem with the above points is that all five flag was publicly accessible to anyone as TTP's for Fancy Bear. And meanwhile, all five is weak evidence. Any script kittie in the world is capable of both hacking WADA and planting these false-flags.

A stronger than these weak pieces of evidence would be:

Malware sharing same code attributed to Fancy Bear (where the code is not publicly available or circulating on hackforums)
Private servers sharing the IP address with previous attacks attributed to Fancy Bear (where the server is not a hacked server or a proxy used by multiple parties)
E-mail addresses used to register the domain attributed to Fancy Bear
Many other things

For me, it is quite strange that after such great analysis on Guccifer 2.0, the Threatconnect guys came up with this low-value post.

The fancybear website

It is quite unfortunate that the analysis was not updated after the documents have been leaked. But let's just have a look at the fancybear . net website, shall we?

Now the question is, if you are a Russian state-sponsored hacker group, and you are already accused of the hack itself, do you create a website with tons of bears on the website, and do you choose the same name (Fancy Bear) for your "Hack team" that is already used by Crowdstrike to refer to a Russian state-sponsored hacker group? Well, for me, it makes no sense. Now I can hear people screaming: "The Russians changed tactics to confuse us". Again, it makes no sense to change tactics on this, while keeping tactics on the "evidence" found by Threatconnect.

It makes sense that a Russian state-sponsored group creates a fake persona, names it Guccifer 2.0, pretends Guccifer 2.0 is from Romania, but in the end it turns out Guccifer 2.0 isn't a native Romanian speaker. That really makes sense.

What happens when someone creates this fancybear website for leaking the docs, and from the Twitter account reaches out to the media? Journalists check the website, they see it was done by Fancy Bear, they ~~Bing~~ Google this name, and clearly see it is a Russian state-sponsored hacker group. Some journalists also found the Threatconnect report, which seems very convincing for the first read. I mean, it is a work of experts, right? So you can write in the headlines that the hack was done by the Russians.

Just imagine an expert in the USA or Canada writing in report for WADA:
"the hack was done by non-Russian, but state-sponsored actors, who planted a lot of false-flags to accuse the Russians and to destroy confidence in past and future leaks". Well, I am sure this is not a popular opinion, and whoever tries this, risks his career. Experts are human, subject to all kinds of bias.

The Guardian

The only other source I was able to find is from The Guardian, where not just one side (it was Russia) was represented in the article. It is quite unfortunate that both experts are from Russia - so people from USA will call them being not objective on the matter. But the fact that they are Russian experts does not mean they are not true ...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/15/fancy-bears-hackers--russia-wada-tues-leaks

Sergei Nikitin:
"We don't have this in the case of the DNC and Wada hacks, so it's not clear on what basis conclusions are being drawn that Russian hackers or special services were involved. It's done on the basis of the website design, which is absurd," he said, referring to the depiction of symbolically Russian animals, brown and white bears, on the "Fancy Bears' Hack Team" website.

I don't agree with the DNC part, but this is not the topic of conversation here.

Alexander Baranov:
"the hackers were most likely amateurs who published a "semi-finished product" rather than truly compromising information. "They could have done this more harshly and suddenly," he said. "If it was [state-sponsored] hackers, they would have dug deeper. Since it's enthusiasts, amateurs, they got what they got and went public with it.""

The @anpoland side-track

First please check the tas-cas.org hack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=day5Aq0bHsA , I will be here when you finished it. This is a website for "Court of Arbitration for Sport's", and referring to the Threatconnect post, "CAS is the highest international tribunal that was established to settle disputes related to sport through arbitration. Starting in 2016, an anti-doping division of CAS began judging doping cases at the Olympic Games, replacing the IOC disciplinary commission." Now you can see why this attack is also discussed here.

My bet is that this machine was set-up for these @anpoland videos only. Whether google.ru is a false flag or it is real, hard to decide. It is interesting to see that there is no google search done via google.ru, it is used only once.
The creator of the video can't double click. Is it because he has a malfunctioning mouse? Is it because he uses a virtualization console, which is near-perfect OPSEC to hide your real identity? My personal experience is that using virtualization consoles remotely (e.g. RDP) has very similar effects to what we can see on the video.
The timeline of the Twitter account is quite strange, registered in 2010
I agree with the Threatconnect analysis that this @anpoland account is probably a faketivist, and not an activist. But who is behind it, remains a mystery.
Either the "activist" is using a whonix-like setup for remaining anonymous, or a TOR router (something like this), or does not care about privacy at all. Looking at the response times (SQLmap, web browser), I doubt this "activist" is behind anything related to TOR. Which makes no sense for an activist, who publishes his hack on Youtube. People are stupid for sure, but this does not add up. It makes sense that this was a server (paid by bitcoins or stolen credit cards or whatever) rather than a home computer.

For me, this whole @anpoland thing makes no sense, and I think it is just loosely connected to the WADA hack.

The mysterious Korean characters in the HTML source

There is another interesting flag in the whole story, which actually makes no sense. When the website was published, there were Korean characters in HTML comments.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160913013727/http://fancybear.net/

When someone pointed this out on Twitter, these Korean HTML comments disappeared:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160914231209/http://www.fancybear.net/

These HTML comments look like generated HTML comments, from a WYSIWYG editor, which is using the Korean language. Let me know if you can identify the editor.

The Russians are denying it

Well, what choice they have? It does not matter if they did this or not, they will deny it. And they can't deny this differently. Just imagine a spokesperson: "Previously we have falsely denied the DCC and DNC hacks, but this time please believe us, this wasn't Russia." Sounds plausible ...

Attribution

Let me sum up what we know:

It makes sense that the WADA hack was done by Russia, because:

Russia being almost banned from the Olympics due to doping scandal, it made sense to discredit WADA and US Olympians
There are multiple(weak) pieces of evidence which point to Russia

It makes sense that the WADA hack was not done by Russia, because:

By instantly attributing the hack to the Russians, the story was more about to discredit Russia than discrediting WADA or US Olympians.
In reality, there was no gain for Russia for disclosing the documents. Nothing happened, nothing changed, no discredit for WADA. Not a single case turned out to be illegal or unethical.
~~Altering the leaked documents makes no sense if it was Russia~~ (see update at the end). Altering the leaked documents makes a lot of sense if it was not Russia. Because from now on, people can always state "these leaks cannot be trusted, so it is not true what is written there". It is quite cozy for any US organization, who has been hacked or will be hacked. If you are interested in the "Russians forging leaked documents" debate, I highly recommend to start with this The Intercept article
If the Korean characters were false flags planted by the Russians, why would they remove it? If it had been Russian characters, I would understand removing it.
All evidence against Russia is weak, can be easily forged by even any script kittie.

I don't like guessing, but here is my guess. This WADA hack was an operation of a (non-professional) hackers-for-hire service, paid by an enemy of Russia. The goal was to hack WADA, leak the documents, modify some contents in the documents, and blame it all on the Russians ...

Questions and answers

Was Russia capable of doing this WADA hack? Yes.
Was Russia hacking WADA? Maybe yes, maybe not.
Was this leak done by a Russian state-sponsored hacker group? I highly doubt that.
Is it possible to buy an attribution-dice where all six-side is Russia? No, it is sold-out.

Let me know what you think about this, and please comment.

Update: As TheGrugq pointed out, Guccifer has been found to alter documents https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4uyih3/russian_hackers_altered_emails_before_release_to/?st=IUJDLSIE&sh=e195e908

NARAYAN KHADKA 9808415891

TIME