Astonishingly, the private keys were 4, 56, 66, 115, 155, 156, 230, 237.

exploiting compromised certificates requires an active adversary-in-the-middle attack, meaning the attacker must act as a proxy between two TLS parties and receive encrypted traffic, decrypt it, reencrypt it, and send it to the other party. Such capabilities, in some cases, are usually limited to only the most well-resourced attackers. People with control of a local network—at a coffee shop, university, or other organization—face much less of a challenge.

https://emudhra.we-have-a-problem.com/

Xkcd 221: int getRandomNumber() { return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll. guaranteed to be random. }

  • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    153
    ·
    1 day ago

    Okay, that’s fun and scary at the same time.

    The article links to a webpage,

    https://emudhra.we-have-a-problem.com/

    That shows if your browser is still using those certs, and though it says Firefox has already updated, maybe it hasn’t reached mobile yet as it shows I’m using them all still.

    I guess I won’t connect to anything important for a few days.

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Do you mean not connecting to anything? Because that would be the action if you considered this a threat

      • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        That’s… what I said?

        I do consider this a threat. A root certificate being compromised is a big deal. Your web traffic goes across multiple devices before reaching its intended destination, and if any one of them are compromised they could successfully perform an invisible man in the middle attack of your browser/app keeps trusting those certificates.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Ssl is pretty useful, yeah, but those that were mass unlocked with a gimmick key were already very insecure and at this moment they are revoked. Either way, aren’t you supposed to be locked in now?

          • BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            That only applies to applications and services that support remote certificate revocation.

            Those certificates were still in use until Firefox offered another update this morning, but that’s just the browser. Every company and their little bastard love child wants you to use an app to connect to their services, how many of those apps support automatic certificate revocation?

            Any app on your phone that doesn’t is now vulnerable to being compromised invisibly. A successful MITM attack looks like nothing at all. The attacker decrypts the traffic with the compromised certificate’s secret to snoop in on the secrets (like username and password) and re-encrypts it to send it forward so the destination server doesn’t know any different either.

            Now that it’s public knowledge, I guarantee someone is trying to capitalize on it right now.

            How certain are you that not a single switch between you and your bank’s website is fully secured?

      • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        is the post body having issues displaying? asking because this is way past the first time this season i’ve seen people not see it

        • tuckerm@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          It’s displaying fine for me, I think I was just scrolling quickly on my phone and didn’t notice that the https://emudhra.we-have-a-problem.com/ link in the body was different from the linked article. I saw a blockquote in the post body, and figured that the URL beneath the quote was a link to the article.

    • bazzett@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Uhh… Weird. In my phone (Android 15) both Firefox 158.0.1 and Brave 1.97.59 (Chromium 155.0.8059.85) connect to 6 of the 12 hosts.

      But on my tablet (Android 10) I have the same versions of Firefox and Brave, and there they don’t connect to any of the hosts.

      What can I do?

    • cheeseburger@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      For mobile

      • Vanadium 155.0.8059.84 (config 217) on GrapheneOS connects to 6/12 0/12. Last updated 2026-10-17
      • Fennec 158.0.0 (build #1580020) connects to 12/12. Last updated 2026-10-14
      • edited: after I hit ‘run again’ a couple times Vanadium went 0/12, so hurray. Didn’t make a difference to my dear Fennec though.
      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        My Vanadium just refused all 12 connections. But maybe some of the DNS blocking or Suricata on my LAN might have helped.

        • cheeseburger@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Thanks, I tried harder and got the same result as you. Edited my comment above to reflect.

      • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I just recently swapped to Fennec and it’s correctly getting 0/12. These updates seem a bit inconsistent.

    • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      I’m on a 10/7 build and I’m vulnerable on mobile FireFox, as well.

      Edit: updated to a 10/19 version, 158.0.1, and it’s still vulnerable.