Re: Cahoot's cert
Adrian Midgley <[email protected]> Thu, 07 May 2015 12:10:43 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.law.cryptography.uk |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAN2jWyg-z7b=vN6Wu3s_7y1OxtE=khqCpL1_Loo9QQ4B1LgPjQ@mail.gmail.com> |
TLS 1 On Thu, 7 May 2015 11:37 Jon Ribbens <jon+ukcrypto-JgzTmhv+UHffC7kMvaharFpr/1R2p/[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:48:06PM +0100, Melanie Dymond Harper wrote: > > > From: Jon Ribbens <jon+ukcrypto-JgzTmhv+UHffC7kMvaharFpr/1R2p/[email protected]> > > > The Chrome alert is because the certificate is using an SHA1 hash, > > > and as of fairly recently, Chrome has started to complain mildly about > > > this because it is considered weak but it is not completely broken. > > > > For once Chrome isn't complaining about this aspect, because while it is > > an SHA-1 cert, it expires in 2015 and thus isn't covered by Chrome's > > complaints about such certs -- they are distrusting SHA-1 certs (or > > certs involving a SHA-1 intermediate in their chain) which expire on or > > after 1/1/2016. This time it's complaining about something > > algorithm/cipher related, and I really wish they would be more explicit > > about exactly the problem was in each case; I have spent a significant > > amount of support time dealing with this sort of question lately... > > For securebank.cahoot.com, the certificate expires 14th May 2016 so > SHA1 *is* what Chrome is complaining about. For www.cahoot.com, the > cryptography is particularly rubbish given that it's using MD5 and > RC4, but as you say the expiry is in 2015 and what Chrome is actually > complaining about is that the page mixes content from http and https > sources. > >