[HOME] [DOWNLOAD] [DOCS] [NEWS] [SUPPORT] [TIPS] [ISSUES] [CONTRIBUTE] [DONATE]

DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Policy / DNSSEC for whonix.org / ssllabs.com test results / OCSP ERROR: Exception: connect timed out [http://r3.o.lencr.org] / Must-Staple

DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Policy as well as DNSSEC has been set up for whonix.org by @mig5.

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=whonix.org

2 Likes

We also have the Expect-CT header, and more importantly, we are now running certspotter to monitor the public Certificate Transparency Logs for any unexpected issuing of whonix.org SSL certificates that were not made by us.

2 Likes

Our website got B as our SSL seems to support alot of weak Diffie-Hellman key exchange parameters

B for: 94.23.250.81

A+ for: 2001:41d0:2:7d51:0:0:0:0

but it has problems as well such as:

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fortunately it only affected the whonix.org ‘stub’ entry point, which these days doesn’t serve anything except a redirect to www.whonix.org (where all ‘real’ traffic goes), and which was not affected (still A+).

Fixed for the whonix.org stub which was lacking a couple of ssl parameters in its vhost that the www.whonix.org vhost had.

Not concerned much about the reported weak ciphers, browser would have to be targeted with a MITM + downgrade attack which is probably mitigated in other ways, and not all browsers may be able to handle the stronger ciphers (but most modern browsers will favour the stronger ones anyway)

3 Likes

TLS 1.1 and CBC cipher considered weak now better to be deprecated for security reasons:

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=deb.whonix.org&s=95.216.25.250&latest

Also now TLS 1.3 available with Lets Encrypt, is it good idea to support it ?

cc @Patrick


–> https://phabricator.whonix.org/T917

This is now implemented, Only thing left is removing weak ciphers:

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc027) ECDH secp384r1 (eq. 7680 bits RSA) FS WEAK 128
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc013) ECDH secp384r1 (eq. 7680 bits RSA) FS WEAK 128
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) ECDH secp384r1 (eq. 7680 bits RSA) FS WEAK 256
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) ECDH secp384r1 (eq. 7680 bits RSA) FS WEAK 256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0x67) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 128
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x33) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 128
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (0x6b) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x39) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0x9c) WEAK 128
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0x9d) WEAK 256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0x3c) WEAK 128
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 (0x3d) WEAK 256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f) WEAK 128
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35) WEAK
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8 (0xc0a1) WEAK 256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM (0xc09d) WEAK 256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 (0xc0a0) WEAK 128
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM (0xc09c) WEAK 128
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc077) ECDH secp384r1 (eq. 7680 bits RSA) FS WEAK 256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 (0xc4) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 256
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc076) ECDH secp384r1 (eq. 7680 bits RSA) FS WEAK 128
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xbe) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 128
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (0x88) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 256
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (0x45) DH 4096 bits FS WEAK 128
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA256 (0xc0) WEAK 256
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xba) WEAK 128
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA (0x84) WEAK 256
TLS_RSA_WITH_CAMELLIA_128_CBC_SHA (0x41) WEAK
1 Like

Using Intermediate configuration from https://ssl-config.mozilla.org now:

Supports Firefox 27, Android 4.4.2, Chrome 31, Edge, IE 11 on Windows 7, Java 8u31, OpenSSL 1.0.1, Opera 20, and Safari 9
General-purpose servers with a variety of clients, recommended for almost all systems

Another option would be Modern:

Supports Firefox 63, Android 10.0, Chrome 70, Edge 75, Java 11, OpenSSL 1.1.1, Opera 57, and Safari 12.1
Services with clients that support TLS 1.3 and don’t need backward compatibility

But probably no good idea. Not even mozilla.com, ssllabs.com using that. Neither torproject.org.

1 Like

Why not? I dont believe anyone until now using these outdated versions of browsers. Let alone he will visit whonix with them.

1 Like

Because no related peers are doing that, no known security issues, Website Tests, Comparison with Others, Introduction, Whonix is a software project, not a web service, I don’t wish to run an experiment.

1 Like

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=whonix.org&s=95.216.25.250&latest

Revocation status 	Validation error
OCSP ERROR: Exception: connect timed out [http://r3.o.lencr.org] 
  • Enable Must-Staple

OCSP Must-Staple requires OCSP Stapling for the certificate. If a browser comes into contact with a certificate without OCSP Stapling, it will be rejected. Not only does Must-Staple mitigate the threat of downgrade attacks, it also reduces unnecessary traffic to the CA’s OCSP responders, improving responsiveness and overall OCSP performance.

OCSP Must-Staple makes use of the recently specified TLS Feature Extension. When a CA adds this extension to a certificate, it requires your browser to ensure a stapled OCSP response is present in the TLS handshake. If an OCSP response is not present, the connection will fail and Firefox will display a non-overridable error page.

1 Like

I don’t think the error is on whonix.org side.

Clearly not whonix.org timed out.

Was looking for an alternative online test website. Didn’t find any but here’s a test that can be performed manually by anyone. As per: https://www.digicert.com/kb/ssl-support/nginx-enable-ocsp-stapling-on-server.htm

openssl s_client -connect whonix.org:443 -status

CONNECTED(00000003)
OCSP response: 
======================================
OCSP Response Data:
    OCSP Response Status: successful (0x0)
    Response Type: Basic OCSP Response
    Version: 1 (0x0)
    Responder Id: C = US, O = Let's Encrypt, CN = R3
    Produced At: May  5 09:56:00 2021 GMT
    Responses:
    Certificate ID:
      Hash Algorithm: sha1
      Issuer Name Hash: 48DAC9A0FB2BD32D4FF0DE68D2F567B735F9B3C4
      Issuer Key Hash: 142EB317B75856CBAE500940E61FAF9D8B14C2C6
      Serial Number: 047A4A332A89C7214694373185485014C2F2
    Cert Status: good
    This Update: May  5 09:00:00 2021 GMT
    Next Update: May 12 09:00:00 2021 GMT

    Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
         a7:f8:dc:de:5b:3c:7c:48:03:67:8b:55:88:65:c9:7c:1d:ce:
         42:03:11:3f:47:df:de:15:82:22:d5:cd:1c:f8:e5:46:20:39:
         a4:31:2c:d0:42:dd:84:40:6d:c1:f3:bc:c8:08:04:0d:25:fc:
         a7:0d:a2:86:74:7e:e0:c6:b4:b5:f6:94:ba:fe:24:e0:7d:57:
         c0:d4:e2:e6:4b:b1:91:fc:54:5a:5c:7e:9d:46:9c:48:fd:c8:
         51:b6:c5:18:25:fc:d5:77:4a:da:bc:d5:cc:45:1d:74:40:bd:
         6a:df:16:ba:af:35:27:ff:36:ff:5b:07:8e:62:c7:4e:0d:ad:
         31:bd:12:8a:c7:89:4d:a8:95:d3:18:80:56:f9:12:72:fb:cc:
         41:c1:a2:24:4b:d3:c1:d0:71:de:43:b0:c9:ad:1e:31:14:d4:
         af:f1:b9:57:55:0a:4c:9f:d5:87:f4:b8:90:bc:ba:8a:28:3e:
         cd:63:95:22:2d:8c:76:ae:56:1c:78:e0:9a:01:5c:f6:a1:3b:
         b0:4e:2e:d3:4d:04:f5:fd:e4:c5:5e:78:ab:06:c8:eb:b6:ef:
         89:53:f4:3f:77:8a:3d:8b:07:3b:bc:ed:1e:31:62:db:ee:a7:
         8b:f7:57:3e:cd:6f:be:e8:f2:70:a5:70:a5:02:3b:e4:1c:6b:
         89:9b:a2:8e
======================================

Seems functional.

Same error for certbot.eff.org.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210507054847/https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=certbot.eff.org&hideResults=on

Same error for letsencrypt.org.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210507055901/https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=letsencrypt.org&s=138.68.234.180&latest=

Discussed Let’s Encrypt:

Most likely nothing wrong on whonix.org.

1 Like

Yes, if you scan whonix again now doesnt show the error.

Didnt expect ssllabs would give false positive… my bad.

Not good?

I missed that. Looked into that now.

Not even whonix.org's CA is doing that.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210507054847/https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=certbot.eff.org&hideResults=on

https://web.archive.org/web/20210507055901/https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=letsencrypt.org&s=138.68.234.180&latest=

OCSP Must Staple No

nginx support is lacking

https://trac.nginx.org/nginx/ticket/812

Quote mnordhoff Community Moderator;

“No, the web is not ready.”

So, no. For now, not a good idea. Possibly in future. Thanks for bringing that up!

1 Like

Checking grapheneos website they are using nginx + must staple:

https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=grapheneos.org&s=192.99.43.50

can you recheck again?

[Imprint] [Privacy Policy] [Cookie Policy] [Terms of Use] [E-Sign Consent] [DMCA] [Contributors] [Investors] [Priority Support] [Professional Support]