Question: When I use the UI to add a new SSL certificate to a Target HTTPS Proxy, I am expected to enter Certificate, Private Key and Certificate Chain. In the command line, it only asks for Certificate and Private Key. Am I missing something?
A brief summary on certificates
When you sign a certificate request (scr) basically you are signing a public key together with some useful information that links that public key to the domain, organisation or entity that should be the unique owner of the private key.
But you need to sign this public key to make sure you can check no one modified it, but which key whould you use to sign it? If you could use the corresponding private key, then everyone would be able to take ownership of every Domain, therefore you need to sign the certificate making use of the private key of a third trusted entity.
Of course you trust this entity thanks to a certificate that has been signed but an other entity and so on till you find a certificate that is self-signed.
This is the only way to end end a loop that would be infinite otherwise, this self signed certificate identifies a root certificate authority (CA), you have a list of them in your Browser.
You can as well self-sign your own certificate, but since it will be not in the default list in the browser they will see a warning saying that your website is not trustable.
Therefore you should provide a certificate, the chain and the private key to protect your traffic and show your identity, therefore why they ask for different information?
Basically they ask for the same but formatted in different ways:
For App Engine they ask a "PEM encoded X.509 public key certificate" and the key, from the documentation you can notice that the certificate is "your concatenated SSL certificate" therefore is the whole chain
With the gcloud command the certificate and the key is needed, again the certificate is "The certificate chain must be no greater than 5 certs long. The chain must include at least one intermediate cert." again is the whole chain.
From the console you will need to provide the same information but divided, your certificate that is the "Public key certificate", then the chain composed buy intermetiate and root and finally the private key.
However I agree that is misleading and that the same information should be asked always in the same way.
For example for google.com the complete chain is:
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
The first one is the Public key certificate, the second one is the chain since there is not intermediate and it is as well the root certificate.
You can decode the certificate for example here.
The first certificate belongs to Google
The second one to GeoTrust Inc.
Related
I'm completing an assignment on SSL and I feel I understand the basics of how certs are used with asymmetric and symmetric encryption. But I'm having difficulty understanding some details of how exactly trust hierarchies work.
Specifically, what is used to sign an intermediate certificate? All the guides I've looked at state that the CA root cert is used to sign the intermediate cert. But what exactly does "sign" mean here? In other words, how does a server prove that its intermediate certificate is authenticated by the CA root cert?
My guess is that the public key or signature of the root cert are used when generating the signature of intermediate cert the but I'm not sure if this is accurate.
I would really appreciate any info to improve my understanding.
If there is exactly one intermediate, which is often but not always the case, the intermediate cert is signed by the root in exactly the same way an end-entity cert (for SSL/TLS mostly a server cert) is signed by the intermediate. In both cases this is a shorthand; signing is actually done using the private key of an asymmetric keypair, and the cert contains the public key of the same keypair which is used to verify signatures made with the private key. Since the private keys are private and all of us who use the CAs see only their public keys, we focus on that. Thus:
the server cert is signed using the private key belonging to the intermediate CA; the intermediate cert contains the matching public key. As part of verifying the server cert, the relier (e.g. browser) finds or confirms the intermediate cert using the Isssuer name in the server cert, and uses the public key from the intermediate cert to verify the signature on the server cert; this assures that the server cert was actually issued by the intermediate CA and has not been tampered with.
According to SSL/TLS standards the server should always send the intermediate cert (or certs, in order) following the server cert in the handshake, although if it fails to do so, some clients may use AIA from the certificate or other heuristic means to obtain the cert, or may have it already cached or even configured.
the intermediate cert is signed using the private key belonging to the root CA; the root cert contains the matching public key. As part of verifying the intermediate cert, the relier finds the root cert using the Issuer name in the intermediate cert, and uses the public key from the root cert to verify the signature on the intermediate cert; this assures that the intermediate cert was actually issued by the root CA and has not been tampered with.
The root cert normally must (already) be in the relier's local 'trust store' and the server does not need to send it; normally the trust store is provided either by the browser developer (Firefox) or by the OS/platform developer (IE/Edge, Chrome, Safari).
Notice the close parallel between these two statements with the (notable) exception of how the relier finds the parent cert. Also note that validating a server cert chain for an SSL/TLS connection involves much more than just verifying the signatures, although verifying the signatures is a critical part and without it the other validation criteria could not be assured.
One intermediate CA, and intermediate cert, will generally be used by a large number (thousands to millions) of server certs and servers. The server isn't responsible for 'proving' anything about the intermediate cert, only passing it on to the client, which validates the entire chain.
Cross-stack see also
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/56389/ssl-certificate-framework-101-how-does-the-browser-actually-verify-the-validity
which has a nice graphic of this relationship.
I have two different accounts of aws so the cert present on elb in one account,i want the same cert for different account because we have same dns.
How can i import same cert to different account as well.
When i try to get that cert and upload that cert with cert chain ,cert and private key it says certificate not in pem format. So that means get-server-cert api doesn't return pem format,it it?
Any help would be really appreciated.
Thankyou
When you export a server certificate from IAM, not enough information is returned to allow you to use the certificate elsewhere.
This is by design. It is a security feature.
You need to find the original private key. While you're at it, you can just use the original cert and chain files.
$ aws iam get-server-certificate --server-certificate-name ExampleCertificate
When the preceding command is successful, it returns the certificate, the certificate chain (if one was uploaded), and metadata about the certificate.
Note
You cannot download or retrieve a private key from IAM after you upload it.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/id_credentials_server-certs.html#get-server-certificate
Assuming you are already ahead of me, here, and that you do have the original private key, you should be able to use the results from aws get-server-certificate for the cetificate and chain, because they should already be in PEM format, which looks like this:
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
...multiple lines of base64...
-----END CERTIFICATE-----
The certificate has exactly one such block, and the chain has one or more such blocks.
Your private key, in PEM format, looks similar, but has words other than CERTIFICATE in the boundary markers, such as RSA PRIVATE KEY.
Be sure the number of dashes on the left and right of each boundary marker is exactly 5.
I have done some research on this but still have some trouble connecting the dots as to what exactly happens when the server send its certificate to the client in terms of verifying signature and root certificates.
When you create a CSR, it generates a private key along with it, and you send it to the CA to generate the cert and sign it, but doesn't the CA use it's own private key to sign? So what is the point of the private key you generated with your CSR?
When server sends its certificate for client to validate, how exactly does client validate that it is a valid CA cert. It has a collection of trusted CA certs, ok - but how exactly are they used to verify that it was a valid CA that signed the server's certificate using the signature and public key of the server certificate? What things are compared to make sure it was not forged?
Is there any point in encrypting your internal self signed certs? How about an internal root cert? Or is the private key the only one worth encrypting?
If we don't keep a database of encrypted data for our web service (over SSL) for example, would we ever care about storing our own private key once we generated the self signed cert, and if we do, they why?
When you create a CSR, it generates a private key along with it
Or you have already generated your own private key.
and you send it to the CA to generate the cert and sign it
You send the CSR. You don't send your private key. It's private. You don't send it to anyone.
but doesn't the CA use it's own private key to sign?
Yes.
So what is the point of the private key you generated with your CSR?
It pairs with the public key contained in the certificate and it is part of the process used to prove that you and only you own that certificate, as only you can generate digital signatures with that private key that can be verified by the public key in the certificate.
When server sends its certificate for client to validate, how exactly does client validate that it is a valid CA cert. It has a collection of trusted CA certs, ok - but how exactly are they used to verify that it was a valid CA that signed the server's certificate using the signature and public key of the server certificate? What things are compared to make sure it was not forged?
The certificate itself is verified, by verifying its digital signature; it is checked for being within its validity period; and then an attempt is made to form a certificate chain using the alleged signer of the certificate (the 'issuer') and the trusted certificates in the collection.
Is there any point in encrypting your internal self signed certs?
No. They are public documents. Only the private key is private, and that isn't in the certificate.
How about an internal root cert?
No.
Or is the private key the only one worth encrypting?
Yes.
If we don't keep a database of encrypted data for our web service (over SSL) for example, would we ever care about storing our own private key once we generated the self signed cert, and if we do, they why?
Because it's private. It is a critical part of your identity. If you leak it, others can impersonate you.
Can anybody clarify to me what kind of "Private Key" is located in a PFX file ?
I am asking this because after having read quite a lot on digital certification I am still a bit confuse on the Private Key part, especially when Certificate Authority is involved.
The part I am missing is where it is said that the Private Key is kept secret on the CA side but if I go in my Personal Certificate Store and I try to export a certificate, I am able to export it with the private key in it.
Is this private key is the same as THE private key that we are not supposed to know ?
Public key cryptography is used for two different purposes when it comes to X.509 certificates used for SSL/TLS.
Each X.509 certificate contains a public key, which has a matching private key held only by the identity this certificate belongs to (the subject of the certificate).
One of the purposes is to build trust in another certificate. A CA uses its private key to sign other certificates: possibly other (intermediate) CA certificates or End-Entity Certificates (the ones that are actually going to be used for the SSL/TLS connection itself).
For example, the Root CA's private key can be used to sign (i.e. issue) an Intermediate CA's certificate. The Intermediate CA certificate can be verified using the Root CA certificate's public key. The Intermediate CA's own key-pair isn't involved in this verification (although the verification process ensures that the public key in that cert belongs to the Intermediate CA).
The Intermediate CA's private key can be used to sign your server certificate (an EEC). The Intermediate CA's public key can be used to verify the authenticity of your server certificate. Someone who would only have the Root CA certificate can therefore check your server certificate by building a chain. Again, your server public and private keys are not involved in this verification at all, but the result of these operations proves that the public key in your server certificate belongs to your server name.
There is no relationship between any of the key pairs involved in a certification chain. Even the CA issuing a certificate will not (or should not) have access to the private key of the certificate it is issuing.
The second usage of public key cryptography is during the SSL/TLS handshake. The exact mechanism depends on the cipher suite, but this allows the client to agree with the server on a secret that only the server with the private key matching the public key in the server certificate will be able to see. It's this private key that is the private key of the certificate itself.
In a PKCS#12 file, you will find an End-Entity Certificate and the private key matching the public key in that certificate, to be used by the entity to which this certificate was issued, and generally a chain of CA certificates (from the one directly issuing the EEC to other CA certificate further up the chain, possibly up to a Root CA).
Here, I've taken this example of an EEC for an SSL/TLS server, but the same could apply for EEC to be used in other contexts (e.g SSL/TLS client or S/MIME).
If you are talking about SSL-Certificates and SSL I think you mean X509-Certificates in common. Let me make it clear first: the passwords of the private keys are different.
The magic here is Chaining of the Certificates, i.e.
Root Certificate from CA
Intermediate Certificate from CA (for instance Class 2)
Your Certificate
If you look at your SSL-Certificate, you will find this structure. Every certificate within this hierarchy can be seen as a certificate for its own. You can find more information within this msdn article. A briefly description from my point of view:
The Certifcates within this chain can be seen are separate Certificates. With their own ability to sign Information with the private key and validating signature with their private key. They are basically linked within this chain.
You might ask Why are the Certificates linked?
There are two main reasons: Security and Trust.
If you loose your private key or if your certificates is broken, it's need to be revocated. This basically says, that your Certificates should not be trusted anymore. It's listed on the Revocation-List on the parent Certificate to ensure that this security break can be fixed very fast. This behavior explains, why root certficates creating IntermediateCertificates and not your requested Certificate - they want to be sure that they can revocate their Intermediate Certificate as well.
Additionally to this functional explanation there is a mathematical, but I am not able to explain this is an easy way. You can find Information about this within it's article on Wikipedia. Basically it says, that you can't calculate the password from the parent and / or public certificate to use the private certificate.
As I understand, the root of SSL security is based on the public key of certificate authority. And I don't know why this key can be faked by a man in the middle:
The man in the middle received this CA public key but then sends me a public key and fake certificate of his own and pretends that it is valid. I use this key to compute the certificate signature to verify it but if this key is fake, how can I know certificate is not from a trusted source?
In order for any PKI to work, each party should have a list of public keys for CA they trust. These keys have been obtained out of band, securely, from a software vendor.
The SSL certificate (containing the SSL server's public key) received from the server is signed by the private key of one of AC. There is no way to forge a valid certificate without access to one of the CA's private key, so the man in the middle can not send a forged one that will look valid.
The is two things that we need trust in order to use PKI :
1/ that we can securely retrieve the CA's public keys
2/ that the CA won't mess up by signing forged certificates or by getting their keys stolen.