sibiantony / ssleuth Goto Github PK

Because having 2 buttons for the same purpose is a bit weird

Excellent add-on, found one problem, this one cipher suite is scored 9.0 on some sites (example weakdh.org) and 10.0 on others (example usaa.com.) Is there a difference I'm not seeing?

To use HPKP the server owner needs to setup it to send a special header. As we know the most of webservers are not configured for maximum security. I suggest to cache public key fingerprint of every site on the first visit and check it on the following visits (if HPKP is not used and the cert is not expired or revoked). In the case of mismatch show warning and allow to repin fingerprint.

When switching tabs on Developer Edition 47.0a2, frequently SSleuth information doesn't update, window title doesn't update and sometimes even location bar doesn't update.

Console shows:

Error: unsafe CPOW usage forbidden

Please add a button or something that lets us check the domains with SSL Labs, both the primary ones and the other ones in a page. Add a button for each domain in the domain list maybe.

Just make the button open a link that works kind of like this bookmarklet: https://github.com/andydavies/SSL-Labs-Bookmarklet

Would be useful to get a second opinion about a domain and that site is great. :)

On Firefox Nightly (Linux amd64, 2015-01-16, e10s enabled), I am having two issues with ssleuth (both commit 686f083 and the latest release):

• the TLS version in use isn't displayed;
• the preferences page is blank.

What may I do to help debug these issues?

AES GCM is authenticated encryption and should therefore be considered more secure than AES CBC.

See:

• Why is CBC with predictable IV considered insecure against CPA

From e-mail : "Add the size of the security certificate’s key. Most are 2K, but I have seen 4K and 1K from time to time."

The addon incorrectly reports inline data uri images as insecure data.

GOG has A in all servers with PFS:
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?viaform=on&d=gog.com
Your extension tell-me otherwise on a up to date firefox install:
https://i.imgur.com/zR5PPUG.jpg

Add a button to the pop-out window that saves a PNG image of the statistics to disk, so it can be posted in forums. Include the SSleuth logo in the image and the URL of your web site. This serves the dual purpose of increasing public awareness of the extension and providing feedback to the webmaster when a site uses weak security.

It would be nice if the used elliptic curves could be displayed.

More information:

• https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/31772/what-elliptic-curves-are-supported-by-browsers
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_TLS_implementations#Supported_elliptic_curves

Hi there,

just went to www.onehoursitefix.com . It indicates a 10.0. but it uses no server prefs (see output of testssl.sh, https://github.com/drwetter/testssl.sh, sorry for the shameless plug).

Cheers, Dirk

As you can see it uses ECDHE for the key exchange. In the long part you describe it as "Elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman". However ECDHE is actually the ephemeral version of it.
It's very important to distinguish them as they are both (ECDH and ECDHE) possible and only the ephemeral version provides Forward Secrecy.

Sources:

• http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/ECDH-vs-ECDHE-td19768.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_Diffie%E2%80%93Hellman
• https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/50878/ecdsa-vs-ecdh-vs-ed25519-vs-curve25519
• https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33233/ecdh-and-forward-secrecy

This is more a question than a correction.

You rank AES256 higher than AES128, while Mozilla's recommended setup prefers AES128 over AES256. Their reasoning is that AES256 doesn't seem to have actual benefits over AES128 and that AES128 might actually be more resilient to timing attacks. Interesting part of the linked discussion.

So I'm wondering, why not rank them on the same level?

I don't believe that the rankings should take points off for a site implementing SHA-1 HMAC as a collision attack isn't really applicable in that situation. Many secure sites, including banks, use SHA-1 HMACs without controversy.

Howdy, since I don't use the url bar in firefox, I tried to move the toolbar button to the addonbar, but it seems the toolbar button is kinda weird, unlike most other plugins which provide a toolbar button, this is placed next to the menu button, and not in the area where the other toolbar buttons are. Also the toolbar button does not show up in browser.uiCustomization.state which would allow me to fiddle with it's position directly.
It would be really nice if your fine plugin would also work for vimperator and pentadactyl users. thanks for your great work!

I get negative feedback when a site uses TLS with lower grade cipher suites, or no forward secrecy, or a bad signature algorithm. All of this is good, except that using low grade cipher suites with no forward secrecy and a bad signature algorithm is far better than surfing in the clear!
An option to set http sites to 0.0 and perhaps a frightening bright red address bar for non-TLS sites would help drive the point home that poorly configured TLS is still better than no TLS.

Hi there,

just went to www.onehoursitefix.com . It indicates a 10.0. but it uses RC4 and has no server prefs, see #49.

Cheers, Dirk

Calculate score not as a sum of scores of the components, but as the score of the worst component. If the security features are not present, crop the maximum score.

Hello!
Is it possible to have a better positioning of the urlbar icon?
In particular the left margin seems too tiny. In the attached images (Firefox 35 on Windows 7) I highlighted in red the not-so-good spacing.

Thank you!

SHA-1 has already had freestart collisions. Please consider changing the optional display of fingerprint from SHA-1 to SHA256.

Also, the "copy text to clipboard" is cool, but please add a possibility to highlight and copy text directly from displayed information.

Based on #45 it would of course also be very nice to be able to disable specific elliptical curves like you can currently do with ciphers.

On the latest nightly (2015-06-01) I am seeing repeated unsafe CPOW accesses as shown below. This is definitely not an urgent issue as it doesn't impede functionality, but can impede performance.

This could be the cause of the delay in changing scores when changing tab. If I load one tab and then switch to another, sometimes the score of the previous website is shown on the new tab, even if it isn't secure. This will correct itself if the new tab finishes loading, or if I refresh the page, but will remain if the page fails to load. The score shown below, is actually the score for Github, but here it is shown for the unsecured scriptish blog. The scriptish page had at that time failed to load.

Thanks for your hard work on this extension.

Please include the option to disable the URL bar notifier glow as this is a required option when using firefox developer edition or a themed browser as the notification area is not clearly visible.

https://i.imgur.com/Wg2tMcp.jpg

Currently it only disables when you mouseover area. Can the option to permanately disable be included in the add-on general preferences?

Great add-on your efforts are much appreciated. Look forward to any feedback thanks.

I have two ideas.

1. General:
   Make it possible to block sites if they fall under a specific score.
   I'm not quite sure if that's really such useful, but I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
2. Block by specific "parameters":
   Here I'm especially referring to the Logjam attack (see #38). There I would like to be able to block all connections with DH keys with smaller than 2048bit. (of coure this depens on #22)
   In this case a downgrade to the next cipher in the list (using RSA without Forward Secrecy) is more secure, so the ideal thing would be this to happen.

Starting with Version 47 Firefox will support chacha20_poly1305 (or exact
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (0xcca9) and
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (0xcca8) )
SSLeuth show the correct Cipher Suit and calculates the correct (maximal points) rank, but if the show bulk cipher option is activate it will show "unknown 256 bits" instate of "chacha20 poly1305 GCM 256" or similar.

Full story: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/how-to-protect-yourself-from-nsa-attacks-1024-bit-DH

After the Logjam attack - where there where already suspects that 1024 DHE keys are not secure anymore.
Now that's for sure.

That is why these ciphers should be disabled:

So what do you think of including this in the addon?

to make fingerprint changes easily detectable

It would be good to also check whether the server is using HTTP Strict Transport Security and [HTTP Public Key Pinning](HTTP Public Key Pinning).

now I see that TDF and hash function share the same row in the tooltip

So, I'm using Nightly 41.0a1 (2015-05-18), and it's not clear to me how I could download the latest test version of SSleuth, which would hopefully work. Are there any instructions anywhere that I could follow?

Thanks!

If colorization of address bar is enabled than selection's background color is reversed than normal (and due to this almost invisible).

Colorization disabled: http://i60.tinypic.com/2prfekp.jpg
Colorization enabled: http://i61.tinypic.com/2640y7c.jpg

SSleuth: 0.3.1
Fx: 30.0

I noticed this happening during one session. Now I cannot reproduce this behavior, (un?)fortunately.

Afer publishing the Logjam-attack[1] DHE looks not good for (P)FS and breakable as easy as RSA as long the same group is used (and 512Bit DH use on over 90% of all server just two primes(!)).
Maybe the rating should be updated but if possible:
Does Firefox gives information about the DH-Keyzise and if yes can ssleuth display it?

Server with broken DH-Keysize to Test

[1]https://weakdh.org/

Have you chosen a license for this project? I was considering writing a forward secrecy detector to be added to the EFF's HTTPS Everywhere, and this code may be useful for that.

When there is a broken connection as per SSleuth it still shows the addressbar as green.

Even Firefox will say the connection is insecure.

My rating levels are at default except I changed Extended Validation to 0, and Signature Algorithm to 2. Neither of which should cause the addressbar to turn green on an insecure connection. Regardless, it really should not be colored green if the connection is broken no matter what the rating levels are at.

Just like we have a rc4 option

Hi,
Recently the addon stopped displaying connection information and ranking in the latest Nightly (20150525) on Windows 8.1 x64. There is no score given for the connection or colour and both the 'Primary' and 'Domains' tabs are blank, although the 'Cipher Suites' tab still appears to be working.

"SHA-1 reportedly weak" seems not to be displayed in a consistent manner. For some sites it appears, for some not. When I check the certificate though they are SHA-1. That confused me a lot at first... ;)

Do you know what specifically the Pale Moon developers would need to add to allow this extension to provide SSL/TLS version info as it does in Firefox 29+? I'd be happy to request it if you can point me in the right direction. A Bugzilla number that describes the changes in FF might be a good start.

With latest Firefox nightly + e10s the Add-On does not work and shows the following error in error console:

win.gBrowser is undefined ssleuth.js:133:0
(onStateChange function)

edit:

another one:

win.document.getElementById(...) is null ssleuth-ui.js:79:0##

(fwiw I'm using dom.ipc.processCount=4)

From e-mail. Anonymous Joe writes

Now for the annoying suggestions:

1. It should be easier to edit the cipher suites - I gave up on the clicking, went into about:config, figured out the layout and then used notepad and found it much, much easier (I could find no way of moving a cipher from one list to another, for example). How about a simple text editing window? Or are you committed to the slick all-buttons and check-boxes look?)

2. It might be useful to do more fine-grained blocking. in case you are interested, here is what I added (feel free to use and abuse) - these are what some experts (that is, random people on the Internet) say should be blocked (I also made them blocked by default):

{"name":"3DES suites","list":
["dhe_rsa_des_ede3_sha","ecdhe_rsa_des_ede3_sha","rsa_des_ede3_sha"],"state":"disable"},{"name":"DSS Key Exchange","list":
["dhe_dss_aes_128_sha","dhe_dss_aes_256_sha"],"state":"disable"},{"name":"DHE Key > Exchange","list":
["dhe_rsa_aes_128_sha","dhe_rsa_aes_256_sha"],"state":"disable"}

3. Have you considered the option of having all the information visible in one panel? Or at least the two first panels, with the cipher suites separately? Perhaps as a configuration option? After all, most screens have loads of space and no-one keeps the SSLeuth display open while surfing (can't probably be done, anyway), but only occasionally.

Either way, I thought you might be interested in seeing what people are doing with your add-on!

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous Joe

P.S. I never could get the keyboard shortcut to work - though perhaps it was a conflict with some other add-on - haven't bothered to investigate"

Hello,

After the new Drown SSL/TLS attack today or others downgrade attacks, it could be useful to have an indication about the versions of the protocol supported by the remote server to have more parameters and a better evaluation of the encryption.

Copy text to clipboard

Fingerprint: A0:C4:A7:46:00:ED:A7:2D:C0:BE: CB:9A:8C:B6:07:CA:58:EE:74:5E

I like the info and the format. There is one more thing I'd like to see, however. Would it be possible to add the SSL/TLS version (ex: SSL 3.0 or TLS1.2) for the connection?
Thanks

First of all: Sorry for my bad english, I´m just a native german speaker.

While looking for other great AddOns I found the Calomel SSL Validation AddOn. Calomels Website (https://calomel.org) use a 384 Bit EC Cert, valdated with SHA256withECDSA, but ssleuth shows 0 points for it. An other example I found is https://zwopple.com/ (256 Bit EC, SHA256withECDSA) ssleuth failed also to get a positiv rating.
But with big RSA this AddOn has no problems, f.e. https://alenan.com/ with a 8k RSA cert

Please watch https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing for upcoming AddOn Signing. With Mozilla Developer Edition 40.x your AddOn is marked unsigned. Maybe this helps you to update your Addon.