skip to main content
10.1145/3433210.3453100acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesasia-ccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Security Analysis on Practices of Certificate Authorities in the HTTPS Phishing Ecosystem

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Phishing attacks are causing substantial damage albeit extensive effort in academia and industry. Recently, a large volume of phishing attacks transit toward adopting HTTPS, leveraging TLS certificates issued from Certificate Authorities (CAs), to make the attacks more effective. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study on the security practices of CAs in the HTTPS phishing ecosystem. We focus on the CAs, critical actors under-studied in previous literature, to better understand the importance of the security practices of CAs and thwart the proliferating HTTPS phishing. In particular, we first present the current landscape and effectiveness of HTTPS phishing attacks comparing to traditional HTTP ones. Then, we conduct an empirical experiment on the CAs' security practices in terms of the issuance and revocation of the certificates. Our findings highlight serious conflicts between the expected security practices of CAs and reality, raising significant security concerns. We further validate our findings using a longitudinal dataset of abusive certificates used for real phishing attacks in the wild. We confirm that the security concerns of CAs prevail in the wild and these concerns can be one of the main contributors to the recent surge of HTTPS phishing attacks.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

ASIA-CCS21-fp303.mp4

mp4

33.6 MB

References

  1. 1987. Domain names - implementation and specification. RFC 1035. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC1035Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. (Accessed on 10/12/2020). GitHub - elceef/dnstwist: Domain name permutation engine for detecting homograph phishing attacks, typo squatting, and brand impersonation. https://github.com/elceef/dnstwist.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. (Accessed on 10/12/2020). RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. (Accessed on 10/14/2020). Alexa - Top sites. https://www.alexa.com/topsites.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. (Accessed on 10/14/2020). Cisco Umbrella 1 Million - Cisco Umbrella. https://umbrella.cisco.com/blog/cisco-umbrella-1-million.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Anti-Phishing Working Group. https://apwg.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates. https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Certificate Revocation Lists: Certificates Revoked per Day. https://isc.sans.edu/crls.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Comodo Certification Practice Statement. https://sectigo.com/uploads/files/Sectigo-CPS-v5.1.1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). DigiCert: Certification Practices Statement-Version 5.4,September 29, 2020). https://www.digicert.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DigiCert-CPS-V.5.4.pdf .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). DigiNotar SSL certificate hack amounts to cyberwar, says expert. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/05/diginotar-certificate-hack-cyberwar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). GlobalSign Certification Practice Statement. https://www.globalsign.com/en/repository/GlobalSign_CPS_v9.2_final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Go Daddy Certificate Policy and Certification Practice Statement (CP/CPS) -- Version 4.8, Sept. 30, 2020. https://certs.godaddy.com/repository.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). HEARTBLEED UPDATE (V3). https://blogs.akamai.com/2014/04/heartbleed-update-v3.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) | Cyber Actors Exploit 'Secure' Websites In Phishing Campaigns. https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2019/PSA190610.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Internet Security Research Group (ISRG) Certification Practice Statement-v2.9. https://letsencrypt.org/documents/isrg-cps-v2.9/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Majestic Million - Majestic. https://majestic.com/reports/majestic-million.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). More Than Half of Phishing Sites Now Use HTTPS. https://info.phishlabs.com/blog/more-than-half-of-phishing-sites-use-https.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Phishing Schemes Are Using HTTPS Encrypted Sites to Seem Legit | WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/phishing-schemes-use-encrypted-sites-to-seem-legit/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). The Results of the Cloud Flare Challenge. https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-results-of-the-cloudflare-challenge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Sectigo Certification Practice Statement-CPS Version 5.2.2, September 30, 2020. https://sectigo.com/uploads/files/Sectigo-CPS-v5_2_2.pdf .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. (Accessed on 10/16/2020). VirusTotal. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. (Accessed on 10/30.2020). Anti-Phishing Working Group: APWG Trends Report Q22020. https://docs.apwg.org/reports/apwg_trends_report_q2_2020.pdf .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. (accessed September 14, 2020). APWG eCrime Exchange. https://apwg.org/ecx/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Josh Aas, Richard Barnes, Benton Case, Zakir Durumeric, Peter Eckersley, Alan Flores-López, J Alex Halderman, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews, James Kasten, Eric Rescorla, et al. 2019. Let's Encrypt: An Automated Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2473--2487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Pieter Agten, Wouter Joosen, Frank Piessens, and Nick Nikiforakis. 2015. Seven months' worth of mistakes: A longitudinal study of typo squatting abuse. In Proceedings of the 22nd Network and Distributed System Security Symposium(NDSS 2015). Internet Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. R. Barnes, J. Hoffman-Andrews, D. McCarney, and J. Kasten. 2019. Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME). RFC 8555. RFC Editor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. D. Cooper, S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R. Housley, and W. Polk. 2008. Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List(CRL) Profile. RFC 5280. RFC Editor. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Don Coppersmith. 1997. Small solutions to polynomial equations, and low exponent RSA vulnerabilities. Journal of Cryptology 10, 4 (1997), 233--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Zakir Durumeric, James Kasten, Michael Bailey, and J. Alex Halderman. 2013. Analysis of the HTTPS Certificate Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '13). New York, NY, USA, 291--304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Zakir Durumeric, Frank Li, James Kasten, Johanna Amann, Jethro Beekman, Mathias Payer, Nicolas Weaver, David Adrian, Vern Paxson, Michael Bailey, andJ. Alex Halderman. 2014. The Matter of Heartbleed. In Proceedings of the 2014Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '14). 475--488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Adrienne Porter Felt, Robert W Reeder, Alex Ainslie, Helen Harris, Max Walker, Christopher Thompson, Mustafa Embre Acer, Elisabeth Morant, and Sunny Consolvo. 2016. Rethinking connection security indicators. In 12th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS '16). 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Google. (Accessed on 10/15/2020). Google Safe Browsing -- Google Transparency Report. https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/overview?hl=en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Tobias Holgers, David E. Watson, and Steven D. Gribble. 2006. Cutting Through the Confusion: A Measurement Study of Homograph Attacks. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on USENIX '06 Annual Technical Conference (ATEC '06). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, 24--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Doowon Kim, Bum Jun Kwon, Kristián Kozák, Christopher Gates, and Tudor Dumitras. 2018. The Broken Shield: Measuring Revocation Effectiveness in the Windows Code-Signing PKI. In27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 18). USENIX Association, Baltimore, MD, 851--868.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Panagiotis Kintis, Najmeh Miramirkhani, Charles Lever, Yizheng Chen, RosaRomero-Gómez, Nikolaos Pitropakis, Nick Nikiforakis, and Manos Antonakakis. 2017. Hiding in Plain Sight: A Longitudinal Study of Combosquatting Abuse. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 569--586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Panagiotis Kintis, Najmeh Miramirkhani, Charles Lever, Yizheng Chen, Rosa Romero-Gómez, Nikolaos Pitropakis, Nick Nikiforakis, and Manos Antonakakis. 2017. Hiding in plain sight: A longitudinal study of combo squatting abuse. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 569--586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Katharina Krombholz, Karoline Busse, Katharina Pfeffer, Matthew Smith, and Emanuel von Zezschwitz. 2019. "If HTTPS Were Secure, I Wouldn't Need 2FA"-End User and Administrator Mental Models of HTTPS. IEEE Security & Privacy(2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Deepak Kumar, Zhengping Wang, Matthew Hyder, Joseph Dickinson, Gabrielle Beck, David Adrian, Joshua Mason, Zakir Durumeric, J Alex Halderman, and Michael Bailey. 2018. Tracking certificate misissuance in the wild. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 785--798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. B. Laurie, A. Langley, and E. Kasper. 2013.Certificate Transparency. RFC 6962. RFC Editor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Yabing Liu, Will Tome, Liang Zhang, David Choffnes, Dave Levin, Bruce Maggs, Alan Mislove, Aaron Schulman, and Christo Wilson. 2015. An end-to-end measurement of certificate revocation in the web's PKI. In Proceedings of the 2015 Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, 183--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. M. Lochter and J. Merkle. 2010. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Brainpool Standard Curves and Curve Generation. RFC 5639. RFC Editor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Zane Ma, Joshua Reynolds, Joseph Dickinson, Kaishen Wang, Taylor Judd,Joseph D Barnes, Joshua Mason, and Michael Bailey. 2019. The impact of secure transport protocols on phishing efficacy. In 12th USENIX Workshop on Cyber Security Experimentation and Test (CSET 19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Trend Micro. 2019. Security News: HTTPS Protocol Now Used in 58% of Phishing Websites. https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/hk-en/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/https-protocol-now-used-in-58-of-phishing-websites. (Accessed on 10/15/2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Tyler Moore and Richard Clayton. 2007. Examining the impact of website take-down on phishing. In Proceedings of the anti-phishing working groups 2nd annual Crime researchers summit. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Nick Nikiforakis, Steven Van Acker, Wannes Meert, Lieven Desmet, Frank Piessens, and Wouter Joosen. 2013. Bitsquatting: Exploiting Bit-flips for Fun, or Profit?. In Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on World Wide Web(WWW '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 989--998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Adam Oest, Yeganeh Safaei, Adam Doupe, Gail-Joon Ahn, Brad Wardman, and Kevin Tyers. 2019. PhishFarm: A Scalable Framework for Measuring the Effectiveness of Evasion Techniques against Browser Phishing Blacklists. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1344--1361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Adam Oest, Penghui Zhang, Brad Wardman, Eric Nunes, Jakub Burgis, Ali Zand, Kurt Thomas, Adam Doupé, and Gail-Joon Ahn. 2020. Sunrise to Sunset: Analyzing the End-to-end Life Cycle and Effectiveness of Phishing Attacks at Scale. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Accessed on 10/14/2020). 2019 Internet Crime Report. https://pdf.ic3.gov/2019_IC3Report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Peng Peng, Chao Xu, Luke Quinn, Hang Hu, Bimal Viswanath, and Gang Wang. 2019. What Happens After You Leak Your Password: Understanding Credential Sharing on Phishing Sites. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (Asia CCS '19). New York, NY, USA, 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Richard Roberts, Yaelle Goldschlag, Rachel Walter, Taejoong Chung, Alan Mislove, and Dave Levin. 2019. You are who you appear to be: a longitudinal study of domain impersonation in TLS certificates. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2489--2504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Scott Ruoti, Tyler Monson, Justin Wu, Daniel Zappala, and Kent Seamons. 2017.Weighing context and trade-offs: How suburban adults selected their online security posture. In 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS '17).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. S. Santesson, M. Myers, R. Ankney, A. Malpani, S. Galperin, and C. Adams. 2013.X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP. RFC 6960. RFC Editor. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6960.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6960.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Quirin Scheitle, Oliver Gasser, Theodor Nolte, Johanna Amann, Lexi Brent, Georg Carle, Ralph Holz, Thomas C Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch. 2018. The rise of certificate transparency and its implications on the Internet ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018. 343--349.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Christopher Thompson, Martin Shelton, Emily Stark, Maximilian Walker, Emily Schechter, and Adrienne Porter Felt. 2019. The web's identity crisis: under-standing the effectiveness of website identity indicators. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19). 1715--1732.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Ke Tian, Steve T. K. Jan, Hang Hu, Danfeng Yao, and Gang Wang. 2018. Needle in a Haystack: Tracking Down Elite Phishing Domains in the Wild. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (IMC '18). New York, NY, USA, 429--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Benjamin Vander Sloot, Johanna Amann, Matthew Bernhard, Zakir Durumeric, Michael Bailey, and J Alex Halderman. [n.d.]. Towards a complete view of the certificate ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference(IMC '16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Michael J Wiener. 1990. Cryptanalysis of short RSA secret exponents. IEEE Transactions on Information theory 36, 3 (1990), 553--558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Scott Yilek, Eric Rescorla, Hovav Shacham, Brandon Enright, and Stefan Savage.2009. When Private Keys Are Public: Results from the 2008 Debian OpenSSL Vulnerability. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement (IMC '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Liang Zhang, David Choffnes, Dave Levin, Tudor Dumitra?, Alan Mislove, Aaron Schulman, and Christo Wilson. 2014. Analysis of SSL certificate reissues and revocations in the wake of Heartbleed. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, 489--502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Penghui Zhang, Adam Oest, Haehyun Cho, RC Johnson, Brad Wardman, Shaown Sarker, Alexandros Kpravelos, Tiffany Bao, Ruoyu Wang, Yan Shoshitaishvili, Adam Doupé, and Gail-Joon Ahn. 2021. CrawlPhish: Large-scale Analysis of Client-side Cloaking Techniques in Phishing. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland). San Francisco, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Security Analysis on Practices of Certificate Authorities in the HTTPS Phishing Ecosystem

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ASIA CCS '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      May 2021
      975 pages
      ISBN:9781450382878
      DOI:10.1145/3433210
      • General Chairs:
      • Jiannong Cao,
      • Man Ho Au,
      • Program Chairs:
      • Zhiqiang Lin,
      • Moti Yung

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 June 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate418of2,322submissions,18%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader