|
| ▲ | jthoward64 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| According to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449 they actually did use an HSM? Though some of the jargon is a bit beyond me, maybe this will finally get me to learn more PKI stuff. > The hardware used for each of the issuers is in the attached file. These HSMs are FIPS 140-2 Level 3 compliant. |
| |
| ▲ | oasisbob 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My vague and inexperienced read on their description boils down to "we were doing something weird and non-standard as part of our key ceremony because we intended these keys to be exported, and because of that process weirdness we blundered and gave the HSM faulty instructions." | |
| ▲ | zimmerfrei an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The most likely explanation is that they generated the weak key externally, imported it into the HSM, generated the CSR from it, and finally had Root CA sign it. A FIPS HSM does not forbid one to import keys into it. | | |
| ▲ | cstdr 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But shouldn't such a HSM support key attestation (and the parent require such attestation)? Attestation would also track whether a key was imported or generated on the HSM, and of sufficient length. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | somat an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > no HSM would ever generate these You trust the magic black box far more than I do. My big fear about HSM is that they are inscrutable by design. There is no way to verify they are working as advertised. Plus side, all sorts of fancy hardware to protect your keys. Down side, all sorts of fancy hardware that obscures flaws in the implementation. |
