I have a self signed CA which has 1024 bit key length. Is it possible to sign a server certificate with longer key length (2048 bit) using this CA? I want to sign a server certificate and configure that for Active Directory service.
I'm able to do this using bouncy castle. My concern is about
1) Is this a good idea?
2) How would the certificate trust be established? Would that be okay.
Yes, you can use your 1024-bit RSA private key to sign a certificate for a server that is using a 2048-bit key. The length, and even the type, of the key in the certificate you're signing (the server's certificate) has no relation to the key you're using to do the signing. For example, you could have your 1024-bit RSA private key sign a certificate for a server using a 256-bit EC key if you wanted.
(Technically, you aren't signing the certificate itself, but a hash of the certificate. See this question and answer for details. But conceptually, you can think of it as "signing the certificate".)
Trust is established the same as with any other certificate chain:
Your client contains your CA's 1024-bit public key in its trust store.
Your client connects to a server, which sends its certificate, signed by your CA.
Your client sees that the certificate is signed by a CA in your trust store, so it verifies the CA's signature on the server's certificate using the CA's public key in the client's trust store.
The signature matches, so the client trusts the server's certificate.
Related
I have to create an SSL connection between a client and a server. I've created a keypair and signed my public key with my private key. The server won't trust this so I need to get it signed by a CA. I presume that the server will trust a certificate which has been signed by the same CA as was used to sign its own certificate. How do I do the business of creating the signed certificate with keytool? Sorry if this is duplicated information on the Oracle website, but for some reason their pages keep breaking my internet browser.
knowledge so far is based on answer here
I presume that the server will trust a certificate which has been signed by the same CA as was used to sign its own certificate.
Correcting your assumption here: A system trusts various major Certificate Authorities (CA) by default (eg: GeoTrust, Entrust, OpenTrust, Verisign, etc...). When you get your CSR signed by any of these known CA's, the server will trust by default, not just by the CA that signed the server's certificate.
What you could do to test your SSL connection between the client and the server is to work with self-signed certificates.
I've created a keypair and signed my public key with my private key
You shouldn't be doing this as a client. The server is supposed to do this. If the server is working with self-signed certificates, they need to provide the client with that certificate, so that the clients can trust them to make the SSL connection.
As a server, you could use the keytool to create a self-signed certificate. When you are generating a keypair using keytool, it will ask you few attributes like commonName, organizationName, etc... using these attributes, the keytool will create a self-signed certificate and associate it with the private key. All you have to do is export this certificate using the keytool -exportcert command. Once you have done this part, you would use this certificate to secure the server.
Once the server is secured, the server should give or the client this certificate, because it is self-signed and the client's system will not trust it until you explicitly trust it. If the server has secured using a certificate signed by a CA, it need not provide the client with any certificate, because, if it is a known CA, it will already be trusted by the client system.
We have a XMPP server using SSL certificates (for both the server and the clients).
We use a self-signed CA to sign those certificates. Now we want to stop using that self-signed CA, but we have no idea how to replace those certificates to ones signed by an authority like Digicert or GlobalSign, since we don't know what to buy to do the same we usually do (we usually just create a public key, then a request and we sign it using the self-signed CA, and then voila, we have a certificate ready for the client to use)
Any ideas?
Thanks a lot.
we usually just create a public key, then a request and we sign it using the self-signed CA, and then voila, we have a certificate ready for the client to use)
The process is the same as for a Certificate Authority, with the difference you probably have to pay for the certificate
generate a key pair,private and public. (Not only the public)
Generate a Certificate Signing Request including the public key, some data about the certificate as Common Name, and sign it with the private key.
Send the CSR to the Certificate Authority
The CA validates the CSR, builds the certificate and signs it with its private key
Finally the CA sends you the certificate
If I understand SSL/TLS correctly in server only authentication, After the handshake, the server sends the client it's public key and a digitally signed certificate signed by a CA. If the client has this CA's public key, it can decrypt the certificate and establish trust with the server. If it does not trust the CA, then the communication stops. In 2 way SSL where the client needs to authenticate back to the server, after the client receives the public key and the digitally signed cert then the client will send the server over it's public key and a digitally signed cert. The server will check to see if it has a public key for the client's cert and if it does it can establish trust with the client. I am setting up mutual authentication [ 2 way ssl] on a weblogic server [in this case the client, calling outbound to a web service] and the third party sent me a digitally signed cert and a certificate chain. Why do I need these. Isn't this what the server replies with after the handshake?
the server sends the client it's public key and a digitally signed certificate signed by a CA.
The certificate contains the public key. The key is not sent extra.
If the client has this CA's public key, it can decrypt the certificate
The certificate is not encrypted, it is signed by the CA. Thus no decryption is done but the client can verify this signature if the client has the CA's certificate (and thus its public key). But usually the certificate is not signed directly by a CA trusted by the browser but there are intermediate certificates. In this case the server will not only send the servers certificate but also all intermediate certificates which are needed to build the trust chain.
then the client will send the server over it's public key and a digitally signed cert.
Again, the public key is part of the certificate.
the third party sent me a digitally signed cert and a certificate chain. Why do I need these.
The first certificate is the client certificate. The chain certificates are needed to build the trust chain because the server does not trust the issuer CA of the clients certificate directly and thus needs the intermediate certificates.
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.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm not clear on the difference between a CA key and a certificate. Isn't a CA key simply a certificate? Let me try and clarify with an example.
I have a client and a server. I'm only trying to validate my connection to my server and not trying to establish trust to others so I don't care about signing with a real CA.
Option 1: Generate a self-signed CA (ssCA) and use that to sign a certificate (C). I then install ssCA into the root keystore on my client and setup my server to use certificate C.
Option 2: Generate a self-signed certificate (SSC). Install SSC into the root keystore on my client. Setup my server to use certificate SSC.
The second option seems like a much simpler process. Should that still work?
First, about the distinction between key and certificate (regarding "CA key"), there are 3 pieces used when talking about public-key certificates (typically X.509): the public key, the private key and the certificate.
The public key and the private key form a pair. You can sign and decrypt with the private key, you can verify (a signature) and encrypt with the public key. The public key is intended to be distributed, whereas the private key is meant to be kept private.
A public-key certificate is the combination between a public key and various pieces of information (mostly regarding the identity of the owner of the key pair, whoever controls the private key), this combination being signed using the private key of the issuer of the certificate.
An X.509 certificate has a subject distinguished name and an issuer distinguished name. The issuer name is the subject name of the certificate of the entity issuing the certificate. Self-signed certificates are a special case where the issuer and the subject are the same.
By signing the content of a certificate (i.e. issuing the certificate), the issuer asserts its content, in particular, the binding between the key, the identity (the subject) and the various attributes (which may indicate intent or scope of usage for the certificate).
On top of this, the PKIX specification defines an extension (part of a given certificate) which indicates whether a certificate may be used as a CA certificate, that is, whether it can be used as an issuer for another certificate.
From this, you build a chain of certificates between the end-entity certificate (which is the one you want to verify, for a user or a server) and a CA certificate you trust. There may be intermediate CA certificates (issued by other CA certificates) between the end-entity certificate of your service and the CA certificate you trust. You don't strictly need a root CA at the top (a self-signed CA certificate), but it's often the case (you may choose to trust an intermediate CA certificate directly if you wish).
For your use case, if you generate a self-signed certificate for a specific service, whether it has the CA flag (basic constraints extension) doesn't really matter. You would need it to be a CA certificate to be able to issue other certificates (if you want to build your own PKI). If the certificate you generate for this service is a CA certificate, it shouldn't do any harm. What matters more is the way you can configure your client to trust that certificate for this particular server (browsers should let you make an explicit exception quite easily for example). If the configuration mechanism follows a PKI model (without using specific exceptions), since there won't be a need to build a chain (with just one certificate), you should be able to import the certificate directly as part of the trust anchors of your client, whether it's a CA certificate or not (but this may depend on the configuration mechanism of the client).
Both options are valid, option 2 is simpler.
Option 1 (setting up your own CA) is preferable when you need multiple certificates. In a company you might set up your own CA and install that CA's certificate in the root keystore of all clients. Those clients will then accept all certificates signed by your CA.
Option 2 (self-signing a certificate without a CA) is easier. If you just need a single certificate, then this is sufficient. Install it in the keystores of your clients and you are done. But when you need a second certificate, you need to install that again on all clients.
Here is a link with further information: Creating Certificate Authorities and self-signed SSL certificates
You can openssl x509 -noout -text -in $YOUR_CERT to see the differences between files contents:
In your self-signed CA, you can seeļ¼
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Basic Constraints:
CA:TRUE, pathlen:0
And in your self-signed certificate, it's:
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Basic Constraints:
CA:FALSE
If you need more certificates (C), you need to create a self-signed CA (ssCA).
If you need a single certificate, you can just create a self-signed certificate (SSC).
To trust the single certificate (SSC), you need to install SSC into the root keystore on your client.
To trust many certificates at once, you need to create a self-signed CA (ssCA), then install ssCA into the root keystore on your client.
You must always have a root CA, the CA has a key that can be used to sign a lower level certificate and a root certificate that can be embedded in the accepted root certificates on the client and is used to verify the lower certificates to check they are valid. Self signed just means you are your own CA. Whenever creating a self signed certificate you create a ca, then sign a site cert with that CA.