Close Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Subscribe
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
Home - Articles - Herding Certs: Mandatory Homework for 2016
Articles

Herding Certs: Mandatory Homework for 2016

Brian A. McHenryBy Brian A. McHenryJanuary 27, 2016Updated:June 30, 20214 Mins Read
Share LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Copy Link Email
Herding Certs: Mandatory Homework for 2016
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link
Quick AI Summary
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiGrokPerplexityDeepSeekCopilot

The exasperating attempt to bring seemingly uncontrollable and chaotic forces into step with one another is often referred to as “herding cats.” Examples range from chaperoning kindergarteners on a museum field trip to managing rock star developers on a software project. In today’s “HTTPS Everywhere” world, enterprise key and certificate management (EKCM) can also seem like an exercise in herding cats. However, with the explosion of SSL/TLS usage, high profile Certificate Authority (CA) compromises, and ever-evolving malware, an effective EKCM program has never been more vital to ensuring strong security.

Mismanagement of keys and certificates can impact security in a variety of ways. Something as simple as an expired certificate can cause a web application to be unavailable to many browsers and mobile apps, both of which are more aggressively alerting users to poorly implemented encryption. More serious impacts of mismanagement can lead to compromised keys or certificates, enabling an attacker to impersonate a web application with a totally authentic certificate or to seamlessly decrypt data streams via man-in-the-middle attacks. A demonstrably secure and well-documented key and certificate management process is not only a vital part of security, it’s also a requirement of many compliance regulations, including PCI DSS.

In the past, the number of key and certificate pairs was limited to only the most mission critical, public-facing domain names, since public certificates were expensive, and encrypting internal traffic wasn’t seen as necessary. For many small to medium sized enterprises, the result was only a handful of keys and certificates, at most. Today, virtually every web application is transported in whole or in part via TLS encryption, including internal or intranet applications that employ self-signed certificates or certificates signed by an internal CA. This means an organization could have dozens if not hundreds of key and certificate pairs. All of which must be audited for not only expiration, but also digital signature algorithm, key length, and potentially other attributes. At this level of scale and complexity, some sort of management solution is required.

There are many EKCM solutions ranging from free and open source software like Barbican for OpenStack to commercial solutions like those from Venafi. No matter which solution you choose, you should ensure that it provides integration with the various terminations points in your infrastructure, and either provides a CA server or integrates with your CA server of choice. It should also integrate with Hardware Security Modules (HSMs), which are increasingly deployed as a method for secure key storage. Integration comes through a few open standard APIs, including PKCS #11, SCEP, and the emerging KMIP standard.

At a minimum, your EKCM solution should enable you to easily audit and alert on the state of all certificates and keys, including:

  • Certificate expiration date
  • Weak certificate signing with SHA1
  • Weak key length below 2048-bits
  • Discovery of unmanaged keys and certificates (especially self-signed certs)

On that last bullet, I’ve written about the dangers of letting users become accustomed to certificate warnings. Part of the solution to this problem is to establish an internal root CA trusted by employees and other valid users. This better internal public key infrastructure (PKI) prevents users from seeing browser warnings for internal apps which they are forced ignore. While these internal root certificates and keys are not distributed to browsers like public root CA bundles, they must be closely guarded, not only to preserve the internal PKI trust, but also to prevent these root trusts from being exploited. Since these explicitly trusted root CAs override many security measures such as HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP) and certificate pinning, they can be easily abused as in the high-profile instances of the Lenovo Superfish and Dell eDellRoot certificates.

While the problem of auditing all public and private certificates and keys may seem like a large and time-consuming task, EKCM tools exist to enable us to kick-start better key and certificate management. As with most big management tasks, once a baseline inventory is established, maintenance becomes much easier. Ongoing tasks such as certificate renewal or regeneration become much simpler through API integration and automation with the various encryption endpoints in the infrastructure. And rogue certificates are more easily spotted and “herded” back under control through easier revocation, renewal, and regeneration.

Brian_McHenry
Brian A. McHenry

As a Senior Security Solutions Architect at F5 Networks, Brian McHenry focuses on web application and network security. McHenry acts as a liaison between customers and F5 product teams, providing a hands-on, real-world perspective. He is a regular contributor on InformationSecurityBuzz.com, a co-founder of BSidesNYC, and a speaker at AppSecUSA, BC Aware Day, GoSec Montreal, and the Central Ohio Infosec Summit, among others. Prior to joining F5 in 2008, McHenry, a self-described IT generalist, held leadership positions within a variety of technology organizations, ranging from startups to major financial services firms.

  • Brian A. McHenry
    The WAF Is Not Enough
  • Brian A. McHenry
    Access Management, With A Side Order Of Identity
  • Brian A. McHenry
    The Internet of Thingbots
  • Brian A. McHenry
    Black Hat USA 2017: Bigger and Better (?)

The opinions expressed in this post belong to the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Security Buzz.

Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link

Related Posts

Visual data is the blind spot in enterprise security: that’s about to change

May 4, 20267 Mins Read

Making stolen data worthless: why security must start with the data

March 30, 20265 Mins Read

Meta’s Smart Glasses Privacy Scandal Expands After Sama Credentials Found on the Dark Web

March 10, 20264 Mins Read
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar

 
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar
Black ISB Logo

Information Security Buzz is an independent resource that provides the experts’ comments, analysis, and opinion on the latest Cybersecurity news and topics

X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook RSS

Working With Us

  • About Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Write For Us

  • How To Contribute

The Pages

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • AI Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Copyright Notice

Information Security Buzz and all its contents are copyright © 2014-2025. All rights reserved. All third-party trademarks are recognized.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}