My application requires LWP under SSL, but I can't seem to get it to connect properly without receiving an error.
certificate verify failed)LWP::Protocol::https::Socket: SSL connect attempt failed with unknown error error:14090086:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_SERVER_CERTIFICATE:certificate verify failed at C:/Perl/site/lib/LWP/Protocol/http.pm line 51.
Whenever I load up the website in FireFox on my server, I receive
This connection is untrusted (Technical error: sec_error_unknown_issuer)
Whenever I load it up in Chrome, it verifies absolutely fine.
I can load the page up in FireFox and Chrome on my computer and receive no SSL verification errors at all.
I have no clue what is different between my PC and my server; they're both using the exact same FireFox versions so I'm not sure why it wouldn't verify properly on there.
I've tried workarounds by putting in $ENV{PERL_LWP_SSL_VERIFY_HOSTNAME} = 0 in the Perl script but it seems to throw the same exact error still.
This is the script I'm using to test HTTPS
Does anyone know any solution to this or any workaround?
I've tried workarounds by putting in $ENV{PERL_LWP_SSL_VERIFY_HOSTNAME} = 0
As the name of the option implies it cares only about disabling the check of the hostname against the certificate. It does not disable the validation of the certificate chain.
Whenever I load up the website in FireFox on my server, I receive ...
Since you get validation errors with Firefox and LWP but not with Chrome, Chrome has probably an additional CA as trusted which they others don't have.
From your code it looks like that you are using Windows and from my understanding Firefox comes with its own CA store, LWP uses Mozilla::CA (which contains the CAs usually shipped with Firefox) but Chrome uses the system CA store. Thus there is probably a CA in the system store which Firefox and LWP don't know about.
While it might be that there is some special esoteric CA which is known to the default Windows CA store but not to Firefox, it is more likely that you are behind some SSL inspecting firewall and that the administrators added the necessary proxy certificate to Windows CA store but not to Firefox or LWP's store. I would suggest you check the certificate chain inside the Chrome browser and look at the top (builtin) certificate.
If you consider the CA trusted you might export it and import it into Firefox. You might also make LWP use this CA by saving it in PEM format and then set the PERL_LWP_SSL_CA_PATH environment variable to point to the saved file or use the SSL_ca_path option in the ssl_opts setting to make LWP use this CA certificate for validation.
If this explanation does not lead to a solution please provide more details about the target URL you are trying to access and the network setup you have, especially if there is a SSL intercepting proxy or firewall. Please provide also information about the version of LWP you are using, because there changed a lot with version 6.
Related
enter image description here
I dont't know, i try
This is because your system has internet connection protected with invalid or self-signed certificate.
Easy solution - check your system time, maybe wrong date.
If not, and you are using Windows, check if your system has self-signed certificate. You can try to install valid SSL root certificates (if it has) or use parameter DART_VM_OPTIONS=--root-certs-file=<your_cert>
In Linux certs also can be outdated, fresh certificates usually in system repo, just update your system.
At last, check your internet connection - if you using some type of proxi or firewall (or antivirus with built-in firewall) you can face this error.
Try to connect to internet directly or with different provider.
I just setup MagicDNS and HTTPS on my tailscale account.
Then I ssh'ed into my nas and issued a tls certificate with
sudo tailscale cert "machinename.tailnetalias.ts.net"
Response was:
Wrote private key to machinename.tailnetalias.ts.net.crt
Wrote private key to machinename.tailnetalias.ts.net.key
Now when I try to access the web interface of my nas via https:// in a browser, I get an error. Firefox for example says "SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG".
What can I do about this?
The tailscale cert command doesn't know where the certificate files should be installed (it doesn't even know what you were planning to do with them). So the first question is: did you move those files somewhere to install them? If not, the certificate getting SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG is likely some other cert file which was already there.
If the tailscale cert files did get installed, I think the next step would be to click on the lock icon in Firefox on the left side of the URL. It will have a bunch of information about the TLS connection, in particular:
if the certificate had something wrong with it
in the Technical Details section, it will say what TLS version was used (SSL2, SSL3, TLS1.0, TLS1.1, TLS1.2, TLS1.3).
The SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG error was mostly a problem in older versions of TLS like 1.1 and before. If the TLS version is one of those, it may be necessary to figure out how to get the NAS to stop offering the older versions and only offer 1.2 and 1.3.
I made a tool that exposes a web-interface for the localhost. Now, i require this web-interface to register a https prefix for a page. For this i'm using BouncyCastle to generate a root certificate and a ssl certificate. This all works well (generating, signing and binding to port). IE displays the page by https without certificate warnings etc.
However, when a third party app tries to display the webpage, it fails (unable to load and displaying 'about:blank'). Because it is an embedded webbrowser i am not sure what the exact problem is. Thus, along other stuff, i tried to use fiddler to maybe determine the problem - only to find it DOES accept the certificate fiddler generates.
So what i have done is exporting the fiddler certificates and removed all custom certificates from the stores. Then, i imported the fiddler certificates on the exact same stores where my generated certificates are. I also made sure that the build up (all stuff you can inspect by viewing the certificate properties) are exactly the same. By using Windows MMC, clicking the certificates i can see NO difference, even the order is the same. Critical and such - all match. The only thing that is slightly different: the serial number from my certificates are shorter then the ones generated by fiddler.
So what i end up with are 4 certs (I deleted all the original from fiddler): 1 ssl and 1 root from fiddler and 1 ssl and 1 root from BouncyCastle. The roots are in trusted and the ssl in personal, both on localmachine. Now, when i use netsh to bind the fiddler cert to the port, it works. When i bind my own certificate to the port, it fails.
I have no idear why as all the properties look the same to me.
There is one thing though (again, i have no idea what is going wrong, so this might be irrelevant): on the SSL cert (so not the root one) the SKI points to nowhere (or, at least, i dont see where it points to), but this seems to be the case on the fiddler cert as well. Obviously for both certs the Authority key id point to their respective roots. The SKI on the SSL cert is set by
certificateGenerator.AddExtension(X509Extensions.SubjectKeyIdentifier, false, new SubjectKeyIdentifierStructure(subjectKeyPair.Public));
BTW, i use a VM for testing wich is reset everytime, so i don't think i messed up the cert store somewhere along the way. The tool stays the same, the only thing that changes is the bound certificate, both are registered to 'localhost'
IE thirdparty browser
fiddler's good good
Own's good fail (without message)
Why can 2 seemingly identical certs have a different impact? Is there anything i'm missing in hidden properties or something? And, if so, what should i look for?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Minutes after this post i saw the flaw... It had not to do with the certificate at all, but the way it was bound to the port.... I used code from Mike Bouck to bind the certificate. This line was causing the problem...
configSslParam.DefaultFlags = (uint)NativeMethods.HTTP_SERVICE_CONFIG_SSL_FLAG.HTTP_SERVICE_CONFIG_SSL_FLAG_NEGOTIATE_CLIENT_CERT;
Changing the flags to 0 made it work....
Wasted hours.... :(
I am using chrome.sockets.tcp API to create a secure connection. No errors are being encountered when connecting using a trusted certificate.
However, I'm facing error -202 (CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID) (among other possible [certificate errors][2]) when trying to connect to a server with a self-signed/untrusted certificate.
Is it possible to warn the user about the invalid certificate and provide the option to continue with the connection? (similar to the way Chrome handles such situations)
Seeing nothing on the topic in the docs (and SocketsTcpSecureFunction::AsyncWorkStart(), the source code of chrome.sockets.tcp.secure, only verifies the certificate but doesn't try to handle the errors, it would only report them back) I'd conclude there's no way to interactively handle this predicament.
Maybe you can import the certificate on the client machine but it won't help other users of the site unless they're willing to do the same.
I'm trying to see how a certain application is talking to a server in SSL. Basically, the process just hangs when it claims to have done some SSL communication. I want to debug the problem by catching the traffic, but I can't really use a sniffer since SSL will probably look like a hexdump.
Is there a good man-in-the-middle tool that I could use as instrumentation? I just need something that will show me the decrypted communication. Hopefully very easy to setup. I could even point the application to any IP address/port available to my machine (eg localhost:8888), so proxies would be fine. Also, I can probably configure the application to accept any certificate.
What do you use to simulate a man-in-the-middle (mitm) SSL attack?
UPDATE: I tried fiddler and can't get it to work. I installed openssl and typed the following command:
openssl s_client -connect smtp.gmail.com:465
Gmail responds with their certificate and a 220 mx.google.com ESMTP .... However, Fiddler does not capture the traffic. I set the WinINET options in fiddler to "Use the same proxy server for all protocols". Can anyone else get this to work (or not work)? I think I need to find a way to have openssl use a proxy.
Fiddler allows you to implement a man in the middle attack against yourself to see what is inside the SSL tunnel.
Fiddler generates a unique root SSL certificate for your computer, and then creates a session certificate signed by the root. When you configure Fiddler to decrypt SSL for you it acts as a proxy between you and the destination, decrypting the traffic using the site's SSL certificate and then re-encrypting it using its own certificate.
Your browser/application will see an untrusted certificate error. You can get around this error by choosing to trust Fiddler's root certificate.
The folks over at .Net Rocks did a great podcast episode on using Fiddler to sniff your traffic.
I haven't use it for this purpose but Fiddler should be able to do what you want.
Fiddler is a Web Debugging Proxy which
logs all HTTP(S) traffic between your
computer and the Internet. Fiddler
allows you to inspect all HTTP(S)
traffic, set breakpoints, and "fiddle"
with incoming or outgoing data.
Fiddler includes a powerful
event-based scripting subsystem, and
can be extended using any .NET
language.
Fiddler is freeware and can debug
traffic from virtually any
application, including Internet
Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, and
thousands more.
If you are using the amazingly useful Wireshark sniffer, then you can have it decrypt SSL if you are able to provide it the appropriate key files.