Related
What is the series of steps needed to securely verify a ssl certificate? My (very limited) understanding is that when you visit an https site, the server sends a certificate to the client (the browser) and the browser gets the certificate's issuer information from that certificate, then uses that to contact the issuerer, and somehow compares certificates for validity.
How exactly is this done?
What about the process makes it immune to man-in-the-middle attacks?
What prevents some random person from setting up their own verification service to use in man-in-the-middle attacks, so everything "looks" secure?
Here is a very simplified explanation:
Your web browser downloads the web server's certificate, which contains the public key of the web server. This certificate is signed with the private key of a trusted certificate authority.
Your web browser comes installed with the public keys of all of the major certificate authorities. It uses this public key to verify that the web server's certificate was indeed signed by the trusted certificate authority.
The certificate contains the domain name and/or ip address of the web server. Your web browser confirms with the certificate authority that the address listed in the certificate is the one to which it has an open connection.
Your web browser generates a shared symmetric key which will be used to encrypt the HTTP traffic on this connection; this is much more efficient than using public/private key encryption for everything. Your browser encrypts the symmetric key with the public key of the web server then sends it back, thus ensuring that only the web server can decrypt it, since only the web server has its private key.
Note that the certificate authority (CA) is essential to preventing man-in-the-middle attacks. However, even an unsigned certificate will prevent someone from passively listening in on your encrypted traffic, since they have no way to gain access to your shared symmetric key.
You said that
the browser gets the certificate's issuer information from that
certificate, then uses that to contact the issuerer, and somehow
compares certificates for validity.
The client doesn't have to check with the issuer because two things :
all browsers have a pre-installed list of all major CAs public keys
the certificate is signed, and that signature itself is enough proof that the certificate is valid because the client can make sure, on his own, and without contacting the issuer's server, that that certificate is authentic. That's the beauty of asymmetric encryption.
Notice that 2. can't be done without 1.
This is better explained in this big diagram I made some time ago
(skip to "what's a signature ?" at the bottom)
It's worth noting that in addition to purchasing a certificate (as mentioned above), you can also create your own for free; this is referred to as a "self-signed certificate". The difference between a self-signed certificate and one that's purchased is simple: the purchased one has been signed by a Certificate Authority that your browser already knows about. In other words, your browser can easily validate the authenticity of a purchased certificate.
Unfortunately this has led to a common misconception that self-signed certificates are inherently less secure than those sold by commercial CA's like GoDaddy and Verisign, and that you have to live with browser warnings/exceptions if you use them; this is incorrect.
If you securely distribute a self-signed certificate (or CA cert, as bobince suggested) and install it in the browsers that will use your site, it's just as secure as one that's purchased and is not vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and cert forgery. Obviously this means that it's only feasible if only a few people need secure access to your site (e.g., internal apps, personal blogs, etc.).
I KNOW THE BELOW IS LONG, BUT IT IS DETAILED, YET SIMPLIFIED ENOUGH. READ CAREFULLY AND I GUARANTEE YOU'LL START FINDING THIS TOPIC IS NOT ALL THAT COMPLICATED.
First of all, anyone can create 2 keys. One to encrypt data, and another to decrypt data. The former can be a private key, and the latter a public key, AND VICERZA.
Second of all, in simplest terms, a Certificate Authority (CA) offers the service of creating a certificate for you. How? They use certain values (the CA's issuer name, your server's public key, company name, domain, etc.) and they use their SUPER DUPER ULTRA SECURE SECRET private key and encrypt this data. The result of this encrypted data is a SIGNATURE.
So now the CA gives you back a certificate. The certificate is basically a file containing the values previously mentioned (CA's issuer name, company name, domain, your server's public key, etc.), INCLUDING the signature (i.e. an encrypted version of the latter values).
Now, with all that being said, here is a REALLY IMPORTANT part to remember: your device/OS (Windows, Android, etc.) pretty much keeps a list of all major/trusted CA's and their PUBLIC KEYS (if you're thinking that these public keys are used to decrypt the signatures inside the certificates, YOU ARE CORRECT!).
Ok, if you read the above, this sequential example will be a breeze now:
Example-Company asks Example-CA to create for them a certificate.
Example-CA uses their super private key to sign this certificate and gives Example-Company the certificate.
Tomorrow, internet-user-Bob uses Chrome/Firefox/etc. to browse to https://example-company.com. Most, if not all, browsers nowadays will expect a certificate back from the server.
The browser gets the certificate from example-company.com. The certificate says it's been issued by Example-CA. It just so happens to be that Bob's OS already has Example-CA in its list of trusted CA's, so the browser gets Example-CA's public key. Remember: this is all happening in Bob's computer/mobile/etc., not over the wire.
So now the browser decrypts the signature in the certificate. FINALLY, the browser compares the decrypted values with the contents of the certificate itself. IF THE CONTENTS MATCH, THAT MEANS THE SIGNATURE IS VALID!
Why? Think about it, only this public key can decrypt the signature in such a way that the contents look like they did before the private key encrypted them.
How about man in the middle attacks?
This is one of the main reasons (if not the main reason) why the above standard was created.
Let's say hacker-Jane intercepts internet-user-Bob's request, and replies with her own certificate. However, hacker-Jane is still careful enough to state in the certificate that the issuer was Example-CA. Lastly, hacker-Jane remembers that she has to include a signature on the certificate. But what key does Jane use to sign (i.e. create an encrypted value of the certificate main contents) the certificate?????
So even if hacker-Jane signed the certificate with her own key, you see what's gonna happen next. The browser is gonna say: "ok, this certificate is issued by Example-CA, let's decrypt the signature with Example-CA's public key". After decryption, the browser notices that the certificate contents don't match at all. Hence, the browser gives a very clear warning to the user, and it says it doesn't trust the connection.
The client has a pre-seeded store of SSL certificate authorities' public keys. There must be a chain of trust from the certificate for the server up through intermediate authorities up to one of the so-called "root" certificates in order for the server to be trusted.
You can examine and/or alter the list of trusted authorities. Often you do this to add a certificate for a local authority that you know you trust - like the company you work for or the school you attend or what not.
The pre-seeded list can vary depending on which client you use. The big SSL certificate vendors insure that their root certs are in all the major browsers ($$$).
Monkey-in-the-middle attacks are "impossible" unless the attacker has the private key of a trusted root certificate. Since the corresponding certificates are widely deployed, the exposure of such a private key would have serious implications for the security of eCommerce generally. Because of that, those private keys are very, very closely guarded.
if you're more technically minded, this site is probably what you want: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/survival/ssl.html
warning: the rabbit hole goes deep :).
What is the series of steps needed to securely verify a ssl certificate? My (very limited) understanding is that when you visit an https site, the server sends a certificate to the client (the browser) and the browser gets the certificate's issuer information from that certificate, then uses that to contact the issuerer, and somehow compares certificates for validity.
How exactly is this done?
What about the process makes it immune to man-in-the-middle attacks?
What prevents some random person from setting up their own verification service to use in man-in-the-middle attacks, so everything "looks" secure?
Here is a very simplified explanation:
Your web browser downloads the web server's certificate, which contains the public key of the web server. This certificate is signed with the private key of a trusted certificate authority.
Your web browser comes installed with the public keys of all of the major certificate authorities. It uses this public key to verify that the web server's certificate was indeed signed by the trusted certificate authority.
The certificate contains the domain name and/or ip address of the web server. Your web browser confirms with the certificate authority that the address listed in the certificate is the one to which it has an open connection.
Your web browser generates a shared symmetric key which will be used to encrypt the HTTP traffic on this connection; this is much more efficient than using public/private key encryption for everything. Your browser encrypts the symmetric key with the public key of the web server then sends it back, thus ensuring that only the web server can decrypt it, since only the web server has its private key.
Note that the certificate authority (CA) is essential to preventing man-in-the-middle attacks. However, even an unsigned certificate will prevent someone from passively listening in on your encrypted traffic, since they have no way to gain access to your shared symmetric key.
You said that
the browser gets the certificate's issuer information from that
certificate, then uses that to contact the issuerer, and somehow
compares certificates for validity.
The client doesn't have to check with the issuer because two things :
all browsers have a pre-installed list of all major CAs public keys
the certificate is signed, and that signature itself is enough proof that the certificate is valid because the client can make sure, on his own, and without contacting the issuer's server, that that certificate is authentic. That's the beauty of asymmetric encryption.
Notice that 2. can't be done without 1.
This is better explained in this big diagram I made some time ago
(skip to "what's a signature ?" at the bottom)
It's worth noting that in addition to purchasing a certificate (as mentioned above), you can also create your own for free; this is referred to as a "self-signed certificate". The difference between a self-signed certificate and one that's purchased is simple: the purchased one has been signed by a Certificate Authority that your browser already knows about. In other words, your browser can easily validate the authenticity of a purchased certificate.
Unfortunately this has led to a common misconception that self-signed certificates are inherently less secure than those sold by commercial CA's like GoDaddy and Verisign, and that you have to live with browser warnings/exceptions if you use them; this is incorrect.
If you securely distribute a self-signed certificate (or CA cert, as bobince suggested) and install it in the browsers that will use your site, it's just as secure as one that's purchased and is not vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and cert forgery. Obviously this means that it's only feasible if only a few people need secure access to your site (e.g., internal apps, personal blogs, etc.).
I KNOW THE BELOW IS LONG, BUT IT IS DETAILED, YET SIMPLIFIED ENOUGH. READ CAREFULLY AND I GUARANTEE YOU'LL START FINDING THIS TOPIC IS NOT ALL THAT COMPLICATED.
First of all, anyone can create 2 keys. One to encrypt data, and another to decrypt data. The former can be a private key, and the latter a public key, AND VICERZA.
Second of all, in simplest terms, a Certificate Authority (CA) offers the service of creating a certificate for you. How? They use certain values (the CA's issuer name, your server's public key, company name, domain, etc.) and they use their SUPER DUPER ULTRA SECURE SECRET private key and encrypt this data. The result of this encrypted data is a SIGNATURE.
So now the CA gives you back a certificate. The certificate is basically a file containing the values previously mentioned (CA's issuer name, company name, domain, your server's public key, etc.), INCLUDING the signature (i.e. an encrypted version of the latter values).
Now, with all that being said, here is a REALLY IMPORTANT part to remember: your device/OS (Windows, Android, etc.) pretty much keeps a list of all major/trusted CA's and their PUBLIC KEYS (if you're thinking that these public keys are used to decrypt the signatures inside the certificates, YOU ARE CORRECT!).
Ok, if you read the above, this sequential example will be a breeze now:
Example-Company asks Example-CA to create for them a certificate.
Example-CA uses their super private key to sign this certificate and gives Example-Company the certificate.
Tomorrow, internet-user-Bob uses Chrome/Firefox/etc. to browse to https://example-company.com. Most, if not all, browsers nowadays will expect a certificate back from the server.
The browser gets the certificate from example-company.com. The certificate says it's been issued by Example-CA. It just so happens to be that Bob's OS already has Example-CA in its list of trusted CA's, so the browser gets Example-CA's public key. Remember: this is all happening in Bob's computer/mobile/etc., not over the wire.
So now the browser decrypts the signature in the certificate. FINALLY, the browser compares the decrypted values with the contents of the certificate itself. IF THE CONTENTS MATCH, THAT MEANS THE SIGNATURE IS VALID!
Why? Think about it, only this public key can decrypt the signature in such a way that the contents look like they did before the private key encrypted them.
How about man in the middle attacks?
This is one of the main reasons (if not the main reason) why the above standard was created.
Let's say hacker-Jane intercepts internet-user-Bob's request, and replies with her own certificate. However, hacker-Jane is still careful enough to state in the certificate that the issuer was Example-CA. Lastly, hacker-Jane remembers that she has to include a signature on the certificate. But what key does Jane use to sign (i.e. create an encrypted value of the certificate main contents) the certificate?????
So even if hacker-Jane signed the certificate with her own key, you see what's gonna happen next. The browser is gonna say: "ok, this certificate is issued by Example-CA, let's decrypt the signature with Example-CA's public key". After decryption, the browser notices that the certificate contents don't match at all. Hence, the browser gives a very clear warning to the user, and it says it doesn't trust the connection.
The client has a pre-seeded store of SSL certificate authorities' public keys. There must be a chain of trust from the certificate for the server up through intermediate authorities up to one of the so-called "root" certificates in order for the server to be trusted.
You can examine and/or alter the list of trusted authorities. Often you do this to add a certificate for a local authority that you know you trust - like the company you work for or the school you attend or what not.
The pre-seeded list can vary depending on which client you use. The big SSL certificate vendors insure that their root certs are in all the major browsers ($$$).
Monkey-in-the-middle attacks are "impossible" unless the attacker has the private key of a trusted root certificate. Since the corresponding certificates are widely deployed, the exposure of such a private key would have serious implications for the security of eCommerce generally. Because of that, those private keys are very, very closely guarded.
if you're more technically minded, this site is probably what you want: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/survival/ssl.html
warning: the rabbit hole goes deep :).
In the beginning of an SSL query, the client sends a CLIENT_HELLO message.
The server replies with a certificate message that gives the chain of verifications going back to a known trusted agent.
Suppose for efficiency I wanted to store certificates locally for a new protocol. The current design in TLS is always to require getting the certificate. What could happen to a certificate that would require me to know?
I am trying to understand possible attack scenarios. Consider doing online banking, and suppose a certificate has been compromised. In such as case, the bank is not criminal, but they have been hacked and have to issue a new certificate. Is this reasonable?
If you consider that the bank itself is corrupt, then it seems to me there is no point in worrying about the certificate since they have your money and can just steal it. If the entity you are dealing with goes criminal, does the certificate matter?
Under what circumstances can certfiicates be revoked? I am trying to understand why SSL sends the certificate each time -- it seems really wasteful, but there is probably a good reason.
Would it be possible instead to keep all certificates stored on the client, but check a timestamp with a trusted server? It seems like one could at least send less data across the network
TLS Certificate message after `ServerHello is mandatory in mostly cases, so caching won't have any useful effect. See RFC5246
7.4.2. Server Certificate
When this message will be sent:
The server MUST send a Certificate message whenever the agreed- upon key exchange method uses certificates for authentication (this includes all key exchange methods defined in this document except DH_anon). This message will always immediately follow the ServerHello message.
TLS has its own methods to improve performance. When client sends a valid session_id in ClientHello the session can be resumed and the parties must proceed directly to the Finished messages
Also RFC5077 specifies how to resume sessions without server-side state
EDITED - added comments to specific questions
Suppose for efficiency I wanted to store certificates locally for a new protocol. The current design in TLS is always to require getting the certificate. What could happen to a certificate that would require me to know?
"always" is not correct. TLS sends certificates during handshake. Once the shared key is negotiated, the session can be resumed later by client using sessionid (the usual behaviour). Then, the server does not send the certification chain.
The server sends the certification chain. The client must verify that the presented certificate is reliable:
checking a digital signature performed with the private key of the server certificat
the certificate is issued by a trusted CA. Is supposed that client has a trust store with the root certificates of the certification authorities it trust. The client builds the certification chain presented by server until it finds the root certificate in local truststore
You can perfectly skip the sending of certificates from the server in the second step step if client has a copy of the server certificate in a local truststore
I am trying to understand possible attack scenarios. Consider doing online banking, and suppose a certificate has been compromised. In such as case, the bank is not criminal, but they have been hacked and have to issue a new certificate. Is this reasonable?
In this scenario the attacker could make a MITM attack. The certificate must be revoked by CA and client should check revocation. This is out of scope of TLS
If you consider that the bank itself is corrupt, then it seems to me there is no point in worrying about the certificate since they have your money and can just steal it. If the entity you are dealing with goes criminal, does the certificate matter?
Seems in this case the certificate is the least of the problems...
Under what circumstances can certfiicates be revoked?
Each CA stablish its own procedure. There is no a standard but there are "good practices": When certificate data changes (e.g email) or becomes invalid (Representative of a company), after a renewal revoke the older one, when key is compromised or certificate is lost
Would it be possible instead to keep all certificates stored on the client, but check a timestamp with a trusted server?
Yes it is possible as commented above: Verify a digital signature, verify revocation and stablish a refreshing mechanism
But if you're looking for performance comparing with TLS, the session resumption will probably have better results
Based on this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3107645/1559672 it's possible to set up ssl connection without user verification.
I think the answer to my question would be yes but can't find anything to confirm/reject it.
The idea is that the server has a certificate that the client can verify via a CA. Then client generates some secret and encrypts with server's public key. Based on this shared secret they generate 'key material' for encryption/decryption. After they have the secured connection, client can verify itself with username/password.
Is it possible like this? if yes, please show me some example or proof.
If not, why not?
The reason of confusion was because of RabbitMQ doc: rabbitmq.com/ssl.html "Connecting without validating certificates" 's example code doesnt define what server certificates or RootCAs are accepted. (RabbitMQ cert is self signed) So I don't get how TLS is set up without that?
Encryption does not depend on certificates. And a self-signed certificate is still a valid certificate.
The purpose of certificates is to prove the identity of the remote peer. Can you really be sure you're talking to the server you think you're talking to and that your connection isn't currently being hijacked? This is ensured by the server presenting a certificate only it could have (public/private key crypto validates this, only the server should have the private key for the certificate; trust/security here depends on the server keeping its private key to itself).
How do you trust the certificate? Well, you may have a copy of it in your trusted certificate store. You'd do this with a self-signed certificate: just put it in your trusted store; since you (presumably) know where it came from, it's trustworthy.
Since this is unrealistic for every public site on the web, a public key infrastructure exists which allows you to trust a limited known number of certificate authorities which can sign certificates of arbitrary unknown parties, and you can indirectly trust those heretofore unknown certificates.
Having said all this, encryption is a separate component and an encrypted, secured connection can be set up with or without the identity verification that certificates provide.
How does SSL work?
Where is the certificate installed on the client (or browser?) and the server (or web server?)?
How does the trust/encryption/authentication process start when you enter the URL into the browser and get the page from the server?
How does the HTTPS protocol recognize the certificate? Why can't HTTP work with certificates when it is the certificates which do all the trust/encryption/authentication work?
Note: I wrote my original answer very hastily, but since then, this has turned into a fairly popular question/answer, so I have expanded it a bit and made it more precise.
TLS Capabilities
"SSL" is the name that is most often used to refer to this protocol, but SSL specifically refers to the proprietary protocol designed by Netscape in the mid 90's. "TLS" is an IETF standard that is based on SSL, so I will use TLS in my answer. These days, the odds are that nearly all of your secure connections on the web are really using TLS, not SSL.
TLS has several capabilities:
Encrypt your application layer data. (In your case, the application layer protocol is HTTP.)
Authenticate the server to the client.
Authenticate the client to the server.
#1 and #2 are very common. #3 is less common. You seem to be focusing on #2, so I'll explain that part.
Authentication
A server authenticates itself to a client using a certificate. A certificate is a blob of data[1] that contains information about a website:
Domain name
Public key
The company that owns it
When it was issued
When it expires
Who issued it
Etc.
You can achieve confidentiality (#1 above) by using the public key included in the certificate to encrypt messages that can only be decrypted by the corresponding private key, which should be stored safely on that server.[2] Let's call this key pair KP1, so that we won't get confused later on. You can also verify that the domain name on the certificate matches the site you're visiting (#2 above).
But what if an adversary could modify packets sent to and from the server, and what if that adversary modified the certificate you were presented with and inserted their own public key or changed any other important details? If that happened, the adversary could intercept and modify any messages that you thought were securely encrypted.
To prevent this very attack, the certificate is cryptographically signed by somebody else's private key in such a way that the signature can be verified by anybody who has the corresponding public key. Let's call this key pair KP2, to make it clear that these are not the same keys that the server is using.
Certificate Authorities
So who created KP2? Who signed the certificate?
Oversimplifying a bit, a certificate authority creates KP2, and they sell the service of using their private key to sign certificates for other organizations. For example, I create a certificate and I pay a company like Verisign to sign it with their private key.[3] Since nobody but Verisign has access to this private key, none of us can forge this signature.
And how would I personally get ahold of the public key in KP2 in order to verify that signature?
Well we've already seen that a certificate can hold a public key — and computer scientists love recursion — so why not put the KP2 public key into a certificate and distribute it that way? This sounds a little crazy at first, but in fact that's exactly how it works. Continuing with the Verisign example, Verisign produces a certificate that includes information about who they are, what types of things they are allowed to sign (other certificates), and their public key.
Now if I have a copy of that Verisign certificate, I can use that to validate the signature on the server certificate for the website I want to visit. Easy, right?!
Well, not so fast. I had to get the Verisign certificate from somewhere. What if somebody spoofs the Verisign certificate and puts their own public key in there? Then they can forge the signature on the server's certificate, and we're right back where we started: a man-in-the-middle attack.
Certificate Chains
Continuing to think recursively, we could of course introduce a third certificate and a third key pair (KP3) and use that to sign the Verisign certifcate. We call this a certificate chain: each certificate in the chain is used to verify the next certificate. Hopefully you can already see that this recursive approach is just turtles/certificates all the way down. Where does it stop?
Since we can't create an infinite number of certificates, the certificate chain obviously has to stop somewhere, and that's done by including a certificate in the chain that is self-signed.
I'll pause for a moment while you pick up the pieces of brain matter from your head exploding. Self-signed?!
Yes, at the end of the certificate chain (a.k.a. the "root"), there will be a certificate that uses it's own keypair to sign itself. This eliminates the infinite recursion problem, but it doesn't fix the authentication problem. Anybody can create a self-signed certificate that says anything on it, just like I can create a fake Princeton diploma that says I triple majored in politics, theoretical physics, and applied butt-kicking and then sign my own name at the bottom.
The [somewhat unexciting] solution to this problem is just to pick some set of self-signed certificates that you explicitly trust. For example, I might say, "I trust this Verisign self-signed certificate."
With that explicit trust in place, now I can validate the entire certificate chain. No matter how many certificates there are in the chain, I can validate each signature all the way down to the root. When I get to the root, I can check whether that root certificate is one that I explicitly trust. If so, then I can trust the entire chain.
Conferred Trust
Authentication in TLS uses a system of conferred trust. If I want to hire an auto mechanic, I may not trust any random mechanic that I find. But maybe my friend vouches for a particular mechanic. Since I trust my friend, then I can trust that mechanic.
When you buy a computer or download a browser, it comes with a few hundred root certificates that it explicitly trusts.[4] The companies that own and operate those certificates can confer that trust to other organizations by signing their certificates.
This is far from a perfect system. Some times a CA may issue a certificate erroneously. In those cases, the certificate may need to be revoked. Revocation is tricky since the issued certificate will always be cryptographically correct; an out-of-band protocol is necessary to find out which previously valid certificates have been revoked. In practice, some of these protocols aren't very secure, and many browsers don't check them anyway.
Sometimes an entire CA is compromised. For example, if you were to break into Verisign and steal their root signing key, then you could spoof any certificate in the world. Notice that this doesn't just affect Verisign customers: even if my certificate is signed by Thawte (a competitor to Verisign), that doesn't matter. My certificate can still be forged using the compromised signing key from Verisign.
This isn't just theoretical. It has happened in the wild. DigiNotar was famously hacked and subsequently went bankrupt. Comodo was also hacked, but inexplicably they remain in business to this day.
Even when CAs aren't directly compromised, there are other threats in this system. For example, a government use legal coercion to compel a CA to sign a forged certificate. Your employer may install their own CA certificate on your employee computer. In these various cases, traffic that you expect to be "secure" is actually completely visible/modifiable to the organization that controls that certificate.
Some replacements have been suggested, including Convergence, TACK, and DANE.
Endnotes
[1] TLS certificate data is formatted according to the X.509 standard. X.509 is based on ASN.1 ("Abstract Syntax Notation #1"), which means that it is not a binary data format. Therefore, X.509 must be encoded to a binary format. DER and PEM are the two most common encodings that I know of.
[2] In practice, the protocol actually switches over to a symmetric cipher, but that's a detail that's not relevant to your question.
[3] Presumable, the CA actually validates who you are before signing your certificate. If they didn't do that, then I could just create a certificate for google.com and ask a CA to sign it. With that certificiate, I could man-in-the-middle any "secure" connection to google.com. Therefore, the validation step is a very important factor in the operation of a CA. Unfortunately, it's not very clear how rigorous this validation process is at the hundreds of CAs around the world.
[4] See Mozilla's list of trusted CAs.
HTTPS is combination of HTTP and SSL(Secure Socket Layer) to provide encrypted communication between client (browser) and web server (application is hosted here).
Why is it needed?
HTTPS encrypts data that is transmitted from browser to server over the network. So, no one can sniff the data during transmission.
How HTTPS connection is established between browser and web server?
Browser tries to connect to the https://payment.com.
payment.com server sends a certificate to the browser. This certificate includes payment.com server's public key, and some evidence that this public key actually belongs to payment.com.
Browser verifies the certificate to confirm that it has the proper public key for payment.com.
Browser chooses a random new symmetric key K to use for its connection to payment.com server. It encrypts K under payment.com public key.
payment.com decrypts K using its private key. Now both browser and the payment server know K, but no one else does.
Anytime browser wants to send something to payment.com, it encrypts it under K; the payment.com server decrypts it upon receipt. Anytime the payment.com server wants to send something to your browser, it encrypts it under K.
This flow can be represented by the following diagram:
I have written a small blog post which discusses the process briefly. Please feel free to take a look.
SSL Handshake
A small snippet from the same is as follows:
"Client makes a request to the server over HTTPS. Server sends a copy of its SSL certificate + public key. After verifying the identity of the server with its local trusted CA store, client generates a secret session key, encrypts it using the server's public key and sends it. Server decrypts the secret session key using its private key and sends an acknowledgment to the client. Secure channel established."
Mehaase has explained it in details already. I will add my 2 cents to this series. I have many blogposts revolving around SSL handshake and certificates. While most of this revolves around IIS web server, the post is still relevant to SSL/TLS handshake in general. Here are few for your reference:
SSL Handshake and IIS
Client certificate Authentication in SSL Handshake
Do not treat CERTIFICATES & SSL as one topic. Treat them as 2 different topics and then try to see who they work in conjunction. This will help you answer the question.
Establishing trust between communicating parties via Certificate Store
SSL/TLS communication works solely on the basis of trust. Every computer (client/server) on the internet has a list of Root CA's and Intermediate CA's that it maintains. These are periodically updated. During SSL handshake this is used as a reference to establish trust. For exampe, during SSL handshake, when the client provides a certificate to the server. The server will try to cehck whether the CA who issued the cert is present in its list of CA's . When it cannot do this, it declares that it was unable to do the certificate chain verification. (This is a part of the answer. It also looks at AIA for this.) The client also does a similar verification for the server certificate which it receives in Server Hello.
On Windows, you can see the certificate stores for client & Server via PowerShell. Execute the below from a PowerShell console.
PS Cert:> ls Location : CurrentUser StoreNames : {TrustedPublisher, ClientAuthIssuer, Root, UserDS...}
Location : LocalMachine StoreNames : {TrustedPublisher,
ClientAuthIssuer, Remote Desktop, Root...}
Browsers like Firefox and Opera don't rely on underlying OS for certificate management. They maintain their own separate certificate stores.
The SSL handshake uses both Symmetric & Public Key Cryptography. Server Authentication happens by default. Client Authentication is optional and depends if the Server endpoint is configured to authenticate the client or not. Refer my blog post as I have explained this in detail.
Finally for this question
How does the HTTPS protocol recognize the certificate? Why can't HTTP work with certificates when it is the certificates which do all the trust/encryption/authentication work?
Certificates is simply a file whose format is defined by X.509 standard. It is a electronic document which proves the identity of a communicating party.
HTTPS = HTTP + SSL is a protocol which defines the guidelines as to how 2 parties should communicate with each other.
MORE INFORMATION
In order to understand certificates you will have to understand what certificates are and also read about Certificate Management. These is important.
Once this is understood, then proceed with TLS/SSL handshake. You may refer the RFC's for this. But they are skeleton which define the guidelines. There are several blogposts including mine which explain this in detail.
If the above activity is done, then you will have a fair understanding of Certificates and SSL.