DigiNotar Removal Follow Up

Earlier this week we revoked our trust in the DigiNotar certificate authority from all Mozilla software. This is not a temporary suspension, it is a complete removal from our trusted root program. Complete revocation of trust is a decision we treat with careful consideration, and employ as a last resort.

Three central issues informed our decision:

1) Failure to notify. DigiNotar detected and revoked some of the fraudulent certificates 6 weeks ago without notifying Mozilla. This is particularly troubling since some of the certificates were issued for our own addons.mozilla.org domain.

2) The scope of the breach remains unknown. While we were initially informed by Google that a fraudulent *.google.com certificate had been issued, DigiNotar eventually confirmed that more than 200 certificates had been issued against more than 20 different domains. We now know that the attackers also issued certificates from another of DigiNotar’s intermediate certificates without proper logging. It is therefore impossible for us to know how many fraudulent certificates exist, or which sites are targeted.

3) The attack is not theoretical. We have received multiple reports of these certificates being used in the wild.

Mozilla has a strong history of working with CAs to address shared technical challenges, as well as responding to and containing breaches when they do arise. In an incident earlier this year we worked with Comodo to block a set of mis-issued certificates that were detected, contained, and reported to us immediately. In DigiNotar’s case, by contrast, we have no confidence that the problem had been contained. Furthermore, their failure to notify leaves us deeply concerned about our ability to protect our users from future breaches.

Staat der Nederlanden Certificates

DigiNotar issues certificates as part of the Dutch government’s PKIoverheid (PKIgovernment) program. These certificates are issued from a different DigiNotar-controlled intermediate, and chain up to the Dutch government CA (Staat der Nederlanden). The Dutch government’s Computer Emergency Response Team (GovCERT) indicated that these certificates are issued independently of DigiNotar’s other processes and that, in their assessment, these had not been compromised. The Dutch government therefore requested that we exempt these certificates from the removal of trust, which we agreed to do in our initial security update early this week.

The Dutch government has since audited DigiNotar’s performance and rescinded this assessment. We are now removing the exemption for these certificates, meaning that all DigiNotar certificates will be untrusted by Mozilla products. We understand that other browser vendors are making similar changes. We’re also working with our Dutch localizers and the Bits of Freedom group in the Netherlands to contact individual site operators using affected certificates (based on the EFF’s SSL Observatory data).

The integrity of the SSL system cannot be maintained in secrecy. Incidents like this one demonstrate the need for active, immediate and comprehensive communication between CAs and software vendors to keep our collective users safe online.

Johnathan Nightingale
Director of Firefox Engineering

70 comments on “DigiNotar Removal Follow Up”

  1. Michichael wrote on

    A well made point. Realistically, 90% of people just click “ignore” anyway when they encounter a certificate error, but the rest of us might get suspicious when we see bad certs. The entire system needs to be re-evaluated, but that can’t happen when there are bad root CA’s.

  2. Ferdinand wrote on

    Well done, giving us a quick and clear resolution. As it turned out this was one useless CA. The Dutch government has some things left to clarify to its citizens.

    I hope Mozilla will consider the possible implications beyond the immediate scope of Diginotar. This episode really puts a dent in the chain of trust.

  3. ocrete wrote on

    Knowing that these certificates are actively bad, would it be possible to make Firefox refuse to load any site that uses them? And not even give the user the option to accept it, I saw that you do that on expired certs now.

  4. biscuit town wrote on

    Everyone has known that SSL has been broken for years because of how “trust” is managed in browsers nowadays but, as usual, nobody cares until we are certain someone has already been screwed.

  5. d2 wrote on

    Bravo, Jonathan. SSL needs to have something other than lowest price guiding corporate purchase decisions, and while there’ll be backsplatter from any firm stuck with DigiNotar, this NEEDS to be done.

    2 thoughts:

    — What about Comodo? Did I miss your revocation of their CA? If not, WHY not?

    — Is Moxie’s notary mechanism ( Convergence ) or CMU’s (Perspectives?) on your radar for Firefox?

  6. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    The sad thing is you can’t even blame race-to-the-bottom pricing in this case, the DigiNotar certs were about a thousand euros.

    I’m intrigued by the Perspectives/Convergence experiments and we’re definitely watching to see how they work in practice and at scale. We have no plans to build either one into Firefox at this time.

  7. ldpreload wrote on

    d2: Comodo made an honest mistake and handled it well. Revoking it out of retribution would do nothing — Comodo is one of the few CAs we know to be able to handle mistakes well! We have no idea whether most of the CAs have made mistakes, let alone how they would handle it. (As the current incident shows, “poorly” is a good guess.)

    Comodo is also a sufficiently big player that permanently revoking it would yield a lot of individual employees moving elsewhere in the industry. Since ultimately all failures are human, that would just decrease accountability.

    And finally, revoking Comodo’s CA would just teach CAs that, no matter how well they recover, they’re in trouble if a mistakeis public, so better to just never publicize mistakes.

  8. Gervase Markham wrote on

    ocrete: the block is non-overridable for certificates issued after the 1st of July 2011.

  9. Fredrick Rybarczyk wrote on

    DNSSEC? Love, @fredrick_r

  10. Doublehypocrite wrote on

    You still have trust comodo. Why?

  11. Martin wrote on

    Michichael, there is no technical prohibition against working on parallel infrastructures for modelling trust on the web, including the well-known ultimately flawed, unlimited limitless trust CA anchor model. Start coding 😉

  12. Ramón Antonio wrote on

    Don’t know what is the policy to select CA but here in Spain we are always missing the Fabrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre (Spanish Royal Mint) as a CA. It issues certificates for all governmental websites and personal/company certificates. We always have to add it manually for electronic proceedings and most users don’t know how to do it.

  13. anonymous wrote on

    Comodo immediately reported the incident. It seems DigiNotar didn’t.

  14. SteveL wrote on

    Can’t we have a way of blocking all Certs issued within a date range? So we could block Diginotar’s certs from July 1 until Dec 31 (i.e. not until somebody else had audited the system and felt it was secure). Then people like Comodo and other too-big-to-fail CAs could be partially blocked as punishment for issuing any invalid certificates

  15. alex wrote on

    I’ll admit a definite ignorance about CA’s and such, but I’m curious as to why CRL’s aren’t more fully employed here. Isn’t a CRL a list of revoked certificates that the browser can check and then set appropriate trust attributes based on any certs listed? Had DigiNotar issued a CRL for the bad certs and the browser had it stored in the cert database, would this not be sufficient to warn users that they are accessing a site using one of the bogus certs? And where does OSCP fit in? I’ve got it enabled, but would it even help in this case?

    It just seems ludicrous that users have to update their applications with a hardcoded blacklist of cert’s and CA’s everytime there is a compromise to the SSL system published in the news.

  16. Ken Dawber wrote on

    Judge, Jury and Executioner.

    Millions of people died in various wars to stop this type of thing happening. The issue isn’t whether DigiNotar did the the right thing or not. It is that we cannot have a judge, jury and executioner all as the same organization and all of this without fair trial and due process etc.

    The fact that mozilla can act as all three shows something very wrong with the process.

    This is particularly important in this case as there are large numbers of innocent third parties who have certificates from DigiNotar. One person is accused of doing something wrong so we go kill kill kill anybody and everybody associated with them.

    Due process should have external parties acting as judge and jury.

    In the period that was required to set this up, there obviously needs to be some safeguards but I doubt if the kill of the full root in needed for that. Since the issue here is DigiNotar’s competence as a root, a minimum needed is to try to allow another competent authority take temporary control while the issue is being sorted.

  17. Jasem wrote on

    I should say even after installing 6.0.1 update and restarting the browser, I noticed that DigiNotar still exists in Certificate Manager. I don’t know why but I had to delete it manually.

  18. jmdesp wrote on

    @Martin : It’s definitively not about coding. It’s all in conceiving a trust model that really handles failure better. For this, it’d be good to realize that inventing a completely new format is not really required, it means a lot of library rewriting for little gain, the part of “I devise new tools” is a strong diversion from the actual aim. If you’re smart you can keep the X509 format and completely change the trust model and it helps you focus on changes that truly alter the trust model.

    The systems based on distributed trust seem to me to be the nearer from really adding something new and significant, but they rise some serious anonymity issues.
    Google’s CA pinning has now demonstrated that it actually brings something useful, and I think Mozilla should very seriously think about integrating it.

  19. Blah wrote on

    ldpreload, d2:
    IIRC, Comodo did not simply make a mistake and then correct it… rather, Comodo wrongfully issued a cert for a Mozilla domain, claimed to have corrected what allowed the wrongful issuance to occur, and then much later wrongfully issued certs again. The wrongful issuance would have been prevented had Comodo made the corrections it claimed it made the first time around.

    Comodo’s roots should be permanently yanked.

  20. muddybulldog wrote on

    It’s not about punishing, it’s about preserving the system as best as possible. Comodo made efforts to work with those impacted and the browser vendors to get their mistake rectified. As was pointed out, punishing registrars is just going to cause coverups making things worse, not better.

  21. Dave wrote on

    >The sad thing is you can’t even blame race-to-the-bottom pricing
    >in this case, the DigiNotar certs were about a thousand euros.

    Diginotar had been issued a monopoly license to print money by the Dutch government. It’s surprising they didn’t charge a million euros per cert, since there was no-one else you could go to.

  22. Thaddy wrote on

    As a Dutchman and as a security professional I really appreciate this.
    I suspect this was always the deal: hardcoded exceptions is pollution.
    Our government was sensible enough to agree and just needed a couple of days to do the assessments. Am I right?
    I think this goes to show that at least our government is not afraid to take extreme and never seen before action at short notice.
    Now, how did Comodo got away with almost the same?

  23. Jeroen wrote on

    When will the update be ready? Dutch citizens communicating with the government have been vulnerable since July 10 — it is confirmed that the PKI Overheid chains were also hacked — they need security warnings ASAP.

  24. colfer wrote on

    Why is the July 1 exemption still in the code?

  25. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    Jeroen: We’re currently testing the fix and plan to release Tuesday morning. If people are impatient to get the fix they can download an “Aurora” build from http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/ or download the candidates themselves from



  26. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    jmdesp: we’re considering cert pinning but would prefer a distributed model to Google’s hardcoding–hardcoding doesn’t scale and not very open. Still, it clearly works and might be better than nothing in the short-term.

  27. piet wrote on

    Too bad the 6.0.1 update has the “Staat der Nederlanden” exception built-in. I can’t untrust the diginotar cert that’s subordinate to “Staat der Nederlanden” manually either it seems.

  28. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    Ken Dawber: a “competent party” taking over DigiNotar’s root and responsibilities doesn’t put the genie back in the bottle — an unknown number of fraudulent certificates are out there and being used and not enough is known to block just those certificates. It is unfortunate this action impacts other innocent DigiNotar customers but it is the only remedy. DigiNotar’s failing puts everyone on the web at risk, many multiples more people than are harmed by yanking DigiNotar.

    “Judge, Jury and Executioner” doesn’t apply.DigiNotar does not have a right to a trusted root in Mozilla products, and Mozilla’s action only affects Mozilla’s users. DigiNotar is free to continue using their certificate and users who think we’ve made the wrong call are free to use another browser.

  29. Thaddy wrote on

    Staat der Nerderlanden is also withdrawn. Jeroen: ITYS
    Good and sensible handling by all parties, btw.

  30. Name wrote on

    This blog post does not explain why Mozilla gave credulence to the Dutch government’s assertions that the PKIoverheid program was safe. Especially in light of the revelation that the Dutch government itself concluded that this assertion was false, I think this warrants a little more commentary on Mozilla’s behest.

  31. Bob Relyea wrote on

    re: datebase revocation.

    That’s an idea that we are looking at implementing. The Comodo case showed holes in our ability to knock out specific certificates. Patches for some of these issues are still working their way in our system. DigiNotar has now shown other holes. We’ve handled both of these cases initially way up in the PSM processing of of SSL certificates because it provided us with the broadest coverage for the quickest time. Patches would handle some of these issues are making their way through the system. As they get applied, additional patches will help fill in the holes.

    Date based revocation (where the valid dates a leaf cert can have is constrained by the CA) is definately in the cards. In addition, we may make the constraint on a public key or String in the DN as well.

  32. Thaddy wrote on

    IMNSHO opinion: the Comodo case still sucks. I think the Dutch government did an unprecedented step to acknowledge the insecurity of their certificates. And in only three days (this is a government, mind you)

    This is a GOOD thing for the internet, just as the Comodo case is a BAD thing.

    And open source proved its strength, if I would have read the hardcoded snippets about the exclusion/inclusion of certain certificate series and it was April fool’s day you “wouldn’t have fooled me”…

  33. thaddy wrote on

    Jeroen, Piet: the security warnings are mostly in place, I am surprised to say. But if Donner says so, somebody listens and the rest falls to sleep (Dutch Joke):
    For the non – Dutch: The Dutch government withdrew all certificates of DigiNotar AND all public ones issued by itself and most of the affected sites indeed show an appropiate warning.
    Some rather big municipalities DO NOT COMPLY YET however, exposing a potential 4 mil. (as of saterday 23:00 CET).

    And the government has given ample warning internally the last few days and externally from yesterday. They also withdrew all statements that anything was safe. The reversed it: nothing is safe, unless.

    Which it seems is in a large part due to temporary patchwork from the side of the internet community as a whole.
    All in all: seems to be handled in a sensible way. I really can’t imagine a better short term solution than seems to be executed in this case.

    We are experiencing/living history here, nobody get’s that?

  34. Boris wrote on

    Jasem, it’s still in the Cert store so it can be marked explicitly untrusted without possibility of override. Your removing it makes it like any other unknown certificate (that is, gives you the option to trust it when you see it). As in, it makes you _less_ secure.

  35. Alex Bishop wrote on

    Ramón Antonio said: “Don’t know what is the policy to select CA”

    It’s described at: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/certs/policy/

  36. colfer wrote on

    The date exemption for being able to override is still in the code:

    security/manager/ssl/src/nsNSSCallbacks.cpp on mozilla-release:
    1043 // If any involved cert was issued by DigiNotar,
    1044 // and serverCert was issued after 01-JUL-2011,
    1045 // then worsen the error to revoked.

    Aside from there being no evidence July 1 is a safe cut-off, can the dates be forged?

  37. Metasansana wrote on

    My my, isn’t it an exciting time to be into Internet security?

  38. rbdg wrote on

    Echoing what @jasem said earlier. Installed v6.0.1 @ 0500Hr (GMT+8) today and found DigiNotar STILL listed as trusted CA.

    The worst part of it all is that I was running v5.0 before the update and had ALREADY REMOVED DigiNotar MANUALLY.

    QUESTION for JN:
    Does it mean that FF minor/major version updates/upgrades have/will routinely ignored/ignore custom CA additions/removals and have/will always overwritten/overwrite the customized CA list???

    Been a FF fan for years, but maybe it’s time to ponder switching over to Chrome fulltime? *SIGH*

  39. Hay wrote on

    Hi everyone,
    one of thing that isn’t clear to me after reading all the news on the revoking of the root Staat der Nederlanden CA certificate is what will happen to older browsers. It is a well known fact that users are slow in upgrading their older browsers, so what will happen if a user with an older browser visits a site using the affected root CA? And if the Staat der Nederlanden releases a new certificate how do they get that in their browser? I’ve read some stuff about Windows automatically updating certificates with Windows Update, but i’m not sure if that also affects Firefox and other browsers.

  40. Robert wrote on

    Fox-IT has just released an interim report on the DigiNotar breach.
    Available at http://tweakimg.net/files/upload/Operation+Black+Tulip+v1.0.pdf

  41. Dave wrote on

    @Hay: It’s as simple as you think it is. If people don’t install the security updates for their browser, then they won’t get any security updates for their browser. This incident adds to the litany of reasons to scream at people who ignore, or sometimes actively reject, updates.

  42. David Bernier wrote on

    I support Mozilla’s decision because of
    the risks and potential for trouble if
    nothing were done about DigiNotar-issued

  43. David Bernier wrote on


    I think hopefully that either DigiNotar or the
    Dutch government CA can revoke the
    potentially dubious Staat der Nederlanden Certificates.

    As for old browsers, I believe New additional
    root CA certificates can be imported into
    the browser by the user. But it’s a
    highly technical issue, so I’m not sure it’s
    the best idea for people with old browsers;
    it might be better to simply recommend
    upgrading or changing to a up-to-date
    browser & version.

  44. Ingo Kresse wrote on

    My, my, my, as if it couldn’t get worse: The interim report of Fox-IT (the company investigating in DigiNotar) reveals that all CA servers were in the same windows domain, giving a domain administrator access to _every_ CA server.


    They knew that one of their servers could be compromised (since they received a fraudulent certificate issued by them) when they made their press release, stating that their PKIoverheid CA servers were ‘unaffected’.


    A horrible thought that we trusted them…

  45. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    colfer asks:
    > Aside from there being no evidence July 1 is a safe cut-off, can
    > the dates be forged?

    There is -some- evidence that July 1 is OK. Earlier (when we didn’t know about the evidence of hacking in June) July 10 was the earliest discovered certificate. Later it was revealed some hacking was discovered as early as June 17, but with more detailed log forensics it still looks like July 2 was the first cert-issuing attempt and July 10 was the first success.

    Depending on the kind of access dates in certificates can potentially be forged. In the current attack it looks like certificate dates will be reliable, but if the attacker created a signing certificate rather than a server certificate then then they could definitely forge the dates. Current evidence says the attacker didn’t get one of these powerful certs. Then again, the first look missed a whole batch of things so the second might have as well.

  46. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    @rbdg: You cannot “remove” the built-in certs because they are, well, built-in. If you press the “delete or distrust” button, though, the certificate –IS– marked as untrusted.

    The 6.0.1 update still includes -a- DigiNotar certificate but it is marked as untrusted. For technical reasons it’s better to have an explicit distrust than have it be simply “unknown”.

    Any certificate changes you make (overrides, marking roots as untrusted) are saved in your profile. These changes are NEVER overwritten by an update.

  47. jmdesp wrote on

    @Daniel : I think it’s a know bug that you can make it appear in the GUI that the cert is no more there, but that it will be, visually, reinstated when you update, maybe as untrusted.

  48. petr_p wrote on

    @Ramón Antonio: Mozilla overlooks all these national CAs because they are relatively small and because they focus on higher level than Mozilla (Mozilla is interested in commercial web server or MIME usage that is about money only, while national CAs target on qualified usage that puts legal binding replacing hand-written signatures).

    Effectively qualified CAs that demand much higher security standards (e.g. you need to prove you identity in person by showing two state-issued identity cards) are not trusted by Mozilla, whereas CAs that issue certificate just by vague e-email or HTTP challenge/response are trusted by Mozilla. What a sad reality.

  49. gebruiker wrote on

    in the certificate manager there are still Diginotar Certificate names and what about the problems mentioned here is the the same issue?

    Add Security Exception

    You are about to override how Thunderbird identifies this site.
    Legitimate banks, stores, and other public sites will not ask you to do this.

    Location: pop3.live.com:995

    Certificate Status
    This site attempts to identify itself with invalid information.

    Wrong Site
    Certificate belongs to a different site, which could indicate an identity theft.


  50. Nima wrote on

    That’s the first step. We need a new design in security.

  51. brian wrote on

    I just downloaded the latest version of Mozilla. Diginotar is still a trusted Cert. I had to manually remove them.

  52. David W wrote on

    @brian – as Daniel Veditz says, the Diginotar roots are still present but are not trusted. This is a *higher* level of security – rather than “I don’t know this root, it may or may not be trustworthy”, this represents “I know this root and do not trust it”.

    If I understand Daniel Veditz’s comments correctly, ‘deleting’ a built in root merely saves an override in the user’s profile that removes all the trust bits on that root. If so, ‘deleting’ the Diginotar roots in Firefox 6.0.2 is a no-op.

  53. Mad Cow wrote on

    Personally, I don’t understand why I am supposed to trust the majority of the included CA certs. In the main I can work with only one or two of them. I’d really like to distrust all but the few I need to use, but presumably this setting would revert each time I update the software (or at least whenever Mozilla decide to change the trust status of a cert).

    IMO we need to find ways to minimise our dependancy on intermediate organisations like Mozilla to make trust judgements on our behalf. With all respect, this is not their core business. Perhaps an idea for a new plug-in?

  54. Everyone wrote on

    @Ferdinand – “Well done, giving us a quick and clear resolution.”

    It was neither quick or clear. After all the conversations between the developers Brian and Robert.
    This decision should have been made instantly.
    Instead we got Firefox 6.0.1

  55. amib wrote on

    Thanks Mozilla for punishing DigiNotar

    Not caring about people security can make big trouble for people in countries like Iran, Syria and some other countries.

    Government is using MITM to steal personal information.

    Please be more sensitive to security
    It’s sometimes related to life of people.

  56. Yield wrote on

    Peoples might also want to remove this ”trusted” certificat authority from their OS.

    In OS X, this can be done in KeyChains. A simple research for DigiNotar in KeyChains will help you find it. In the ”trust tab” just change the status to ”never trust”

    In Windows, you must use a MMC and add the Certificat SNAP IN, then find DigiNotar and to the same as in OS X… Roughly…

  57. ER wrote on

    Diginotar is back for me too 🙁
    6 of them listed under certificates in Advanced Tab

  58. shahin wrote on

    12:26 AM
    #################### NEW DigiNotar show on View Certificates !!! ########

    DigiNotar >
    DigiNotar Root CA
    DigiNotar Services 1024 CA
    DigiNotar Cyber CA
    DigiNotar Cyber CA

    DigiNotar B.V. >
    DigiNotar PKIoverheid CA Overheid en Bedrijven
    DigiNotar PKIoverheid CA Organisatie – G2

    Please checccckkkk this Mozillaaaa

  59. sherry wrote on

    need to get rid of bugs on my laptop its slowing my computer down

  60. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    shahin, ER, brian:

    Please go to the “About” dialog and confirm you have Firefox 6.0.2 (or 3.6.22). That is the version that contains the fixes.

    In the advanced certificates dialog DigiNotar should show up in the “Servers” tab, not the “Authorities” tab. If you view any of them it should say “Could not verify this certificate for unknown reasons” and the serial number should be 0F:FF:FF:FF (the root one has a lot more FF’s). If you switch to the Details view there should be no checkmarks in the SSL, Mail, or Code columns.

    There may be a DigiNotar root left in the Authorities tab, listed as “Software Security Device” rather than “Built-in Object Token”. That’s a cached copy you can delete if you like, but if you open it it should also say “Could not verify this certificate for unknown reasons” at the top. That wording means it’s an invalid certificate and will not be trusted.

  61. Fred5 wrote on

    @Daniel Veditz {Friday September 9, 2011 @ 11:18 am}

    The about box for Firefox shows I am using 6.0.2

    When I look at the certificates there are no DigiNotar items listed under the Servers tab. However, there are certificates listed as being DigiNotar (4 certificates) and DigiNotar B.V. (2 certificates) listed under the Authorities tab.

    This is a screenshot of the Authorities tab:


    The DigiNotar certificates all say “Could not verify this certificate for unknown reasons” and the serial numbers are what you say they should be.

    This is a screenshot of the Servers tab:


    I am not sure what all those other certificates came from but as you can clearly see there are no DigiNotar certs listed.

    Could you please clarify what in the world is going on and whether or not the appropriate certificates have been revoked.

    Thank You

  62. Fred5 wrote on

    @Daniel Veditz {Friday September 9, 2011 @ 11:18 am}

    I am using Firefox 6.0.2 and the DigiNotar certificates are showing up under the “Authorities” tab as DigiNotar (4 certificates) and DigiNotar B.V. (2 certificates). There is no sign of them being listed under the “Servers” tab. When you view the certificates they say “Could not verify…” and the serial numbers are as you describe them.

    I have made screenshots of the relevant tabs in the Certificate Manager to hopefully clarify what I am saying. (I have no idea what all those other certificates are doing listed under the Servers tab or how long they have been there. I did not add them.)



  63. smo wrote on

    The problem is old, so old, even the Roman empire had problems with it – in legal spheres the issue is known as “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” – who certifies certifiers. Of course the humanity still has taken some time since to get to Toqueville and separation of powers, It looks, however, we still have some mileage to go.

    Any society is built fundamentally on trust, i.e. on assuming everybody acts and behaves the proper and expected way. At the same time it depends crucially all those who break these same rules (!) to keep evolving. In other words, it stinks, but we have to keep our noses operational.

  64. Lars V wrote on

    It hass been said by several in this thread that the trust bits can’t be changed for these certificates – but they can! Nothing prevents a user with admin rights to revert the changes and effectively make the certificates trusted again?

  65. Lars V wrote on

    @Fred5 {Friday September 9, 2011 @ 11:50 pm}

    The “default” list in the depicted “Servers” tab are the same as the current list of untrusted/fraudulent certificates in Windows. Those were added in similar patches earlier. Certificates issued to a specific server/domain show up here, as opposed to root certificates and intermediate certificate authorities. Viewing the trust properties will indicate the level of trust and associated trust categories.


    If you select one of them and click “Edit Trust…”, you will see a radio button, most likely indicating “Do not trust this certificate”, and a “Edit CA Trust” button below it. Clicking the CA trust button will bring up three checkboxes for each trust category. All should be *unselected* for a untrusted certificate.

    The bulk of the untrusted certificates in the “Servers” tab are flagged as “Fraudulent” in Windows. The bulk of them were issued by a CA that’s not normally listed in the CA lists. The fraudulent Microsoft certificates were issued to an entity that fraudulently posed as being VeriSign.

    Once the DigiNotar certificates had been flagged as “Untrusted” in Windows, they also showed up in the same list, with the “Untrusted” flag in the last coloumn.


    What I don’t like in Firefox is that patches to the certificate store can be reverted by the computer administrator, even for changes that should be permanent like the DigiNotar certs and the fraudulent ones mentioned above… 🙁

  66. Shahin wrote on

    Hello again
    yes i am using FireFox 6.0.2 and reinstall and clear all cache and folder many times .
    DigiNotar showing up under authorities tab some like all screenshot from my dear friend Fred5 !!!!!!!!!!
    tanks Fred5
    It is interesting that there are not delete from autho… tab !!!
    DigiNotar form IE and chrome certif… showing up in untrusted tab
    but Firefox !!!


    tanks for Your attention
    Sorry for my BL .

  67. Peter Besenbruch wrote on

    I keep finding the Diginotar certificates in version 6.02 of Firefox under the “Authorities” tab. Why are they there?

  68. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    Fred5 and Peter Besenbruch: if the DigiNotar certs say “Could not verify this certificate for unknown reasons” at the top when you double-click to view them then you have the fix, whichever tab you’re finding the certificates under.

    If they do NOT say that please send mail to security@mozilla.org so we can work with you to investigate this issue. It’s next to impossible to carry on the conversation we’d need in blog comments.

  69. Daniel Veditz wrote on

    Lars V: If you have a malicious administrator you’ve got problems, regardless of what Mozilla does. Parts of this fix are in code and cannot be overridden short of replacing Firefox itself with a hacked up copy — which of course an administrator could do. Parts of this fix were done by playing games with the built-in certificate database that could be more easily undone by a malicious administrator.

    I know at least one European country issues certificates on smartcards to citizens, where the smartcard also contains some root certificates (more than just the one needed for the client certificate). If you had that kind of set-up it’s likely the smartcard copy of DigiNotar would take precedence over the marked-bad built-in copy. By plugging in a trust module like that you are substituting that source’s trust for the Mozilla list. This is great if you trust that source more than Mozilla (for example, US gov employees in some departments override the Mozilla list this way), a problem if you don’t trust the people who issued the smartcard.

  70. Mohamed wrote on

    I TRUST YOU BUT I HOPE THAT THE PREVIOUS ERRORS will not happen again thank you a lot for what you offer