Tracking Certificate Misissuance in the Wild
Deepak Kumar, Zhengping Wang, Matthew Hyder, Joseph Dickinson, Gabrielle Beck, David Adrian, Joshua Mason, Zakir Durumeric, J. Alex Halderman, Michael D. Bailey
Abstract
Certificate Authorities (CAs) regularly make mechanical errors when issuing certificates. To quantify these errors, we introduce ZLint, a certificate linter that codifies the policies set forth by the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements and RFC 5280 that can be tested in isolation. We run ZLint on browser-trusted certificates in Censys and systematically analyze how well CAs construct certificates. We find that the number errors has drastically reduced since 2012. In 2017, only 0.02% of certificates have errors. However, this is largely due to a handful of large authorities that consistently issue correct certificates. There remains a long tail of small authorities that regularly issue non-conformant certificates. We further find that issuing certificates with errors is correlated with other types of mismanagement and for large authorities, browser action. Drawing on our analysis, we conclude with a discussion on how the community can best use lint data to identify authorities with worrisome organizational practices and ensure long-term health of the Web PKI.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 80c27db3-d7bc-40b4-8d74-9f663adecbb4Cited by top-tier papers18
- Let's Encrypt: An Automated Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire WebJosh Aas, Richard Barnes, Benton Case, Zakir Durumeric et al.CCS 2019 · 138 citations
- TLS 1.3 in Practice: How TLS 1.3 Contributes to the InternetHyunwoo Lee, Doowon Kim, Yonghwi KwonWWW 2021 · 47 citations
- Certificate Transparency in the Wild: Exploring the Reliability of MonitorsBingyu Li, Jingqiang Lin, Fengjun Li, Qiongxiao Wang et al.CCS 2019 · 45 citations
- The Broken Shield: Measuring Revocation Effectiveness in the Windows Code-Signing PKIDoowon Kim, Bum Jun Kwon, Kristián Kozák, Christopher Gates et al.USENIX Security 2018 · 32 citations
- Towards Automated Auditing for Account and Session Management Flaws in Single Sign-On DeploymentsMohammad Ghasemisharif, Chris Kanich, Jason PolakisS&P 2022 · 25 citations
Builds on4
- Measuring HTTPS Adoption on the WebAdrienne Porter Felt, Richard Barnes, April King, Chris Palmer et al.USENIX Security 2017 · 177 citations
- HVLearn: Automated Black-Box Analysis of Hostname Verification in SSL/TLS ImplementationsSuphannee Sivakorn, George Argyros, Kexin Pei, Angelos D. Keromytis et al.S&P 2017 · 88 citations
- SymCerts: Practical Symbolic Execution for Exposing Noncompliance in X.509 Certificate Validation ImplementationsSze Yiu Chau, Omar Chowdhury, Md. Endadul Hoque, Huangyi Ge et al.S&P 2017 · 67 citations
- Where the Wild Warnings Are: Root Causes of Chrome HTTPS Certificate ErrorsMustafa Emre Acer, Emily Stark, Adrienne Porter Felt, Sascha Fahl et al.CCS 2017 · 53 citations
Related papers
- S/MINE: Collecting and Analyzing S/MIME Certificates at ScaleGurur Öndarö, Jonas Kaspereit, Samson Umezulike, Christoph Saatjohann et al.USENIX Security 2025
- Does Certificate Transparency Break the Web? Measuring Adoption and Error RateEmily Stark, Ryan Sleevi, Rijad Muminovic, Devon O'Brien et al.S&P 2019 · 44 citations
- The Fault in Our Drafts: Vulnerabilities in RPKI Specification and SoftwareOliver Jacobsen, Tobias Kirsch, Haya Schulmann, Niklas Vogel et al.S&P 2026
- Towards Practical, End-to-End Formally Verified X.509 Certificate Validators with VerdictZhengyao Lin, Michael McLoughlin, Pratap Singh, Rory Brennan-Jones et al.USENIX Security 2025
- What's in a Name? Exploring CA Certificate ControlZane Ma, Joshua Mason, Manos Antonakakis, Zakir Durumeric et al.USENIX Security 2021 · 16 citations
