We are starting to ask MOSS project awardees to write an end-of-award report detailing what happened. Here’s one written a few months ago by the Mio project (Carl Lerche).
This is a genuine question from a European Union public consultation:
Do you see the need for the definition of a reference architecture recommending a standardised high-level framework identifying interoperability interfaces and specific technical standards for facilitating seamless exchanges across data platforms?
Words fail me.
Version 2.4.1 of Mozilla’s CA Policy has now been published. This document incorporates by reference the Common CCADB Policy 1.0 and the Mozilla CCADB Policy 1.0. Neither of these latter two documents has changed in this revision cycle.
This version has no new normative provisions; it is a rearrangement and reordering of the existing policy 2.4. Diffs against 2.4 are not provided because they are not useful; everything appears to have changed textually, even if nothing has changed normatively.
It’s on days like this that one remembers that making the Internet a better, safer and more secure place often involves doing things which are very mundane. :-) The next job will be to work on version 2.5, of which more later.
Mozilla is 19 today :-)
In these troubled times, business travellers occasionally have to cross borders where the border guards have significant powers to seize your electronic devices, and even compel you to unlock them or provide passwords. You have the difficult choice between refusing, and perhaps not getting into the country, or complying, and having sensitive data put at risk.
It is possible to avoid storing confidential data on your device if it’s all in the cloud, but then your browser is logged into (or has stored passwords for) various important systems which have lots of sensitive data, so anyone who has access to your machine has access to that data. And simply deleting all these passwords and cookies is a) a pain, and b) hard to recover from.
What might be very cool is a Firefox Secure Travel addon where you press a “Travelling Now” button and it:
- Disconnects you from Sync
- Deletes all cookies for a defined list of domains
- Deletes all stored passwords for the same defined list of domains
Then when you arrive, you can log back in to Sync and get your passwords back (assuming it doesn’t propagate the deletions!), and log back in to the services.
I guess the border authorities can always ask for your Sync password but there’s a good chance they might not think to do that. A super-paranoid version of the above would also:
- Generate a random password
- Submit it securely to a company-run web service
- On receiving acknowledgement of receipt, change your Sync password to
the random password
Then, on arrival, you just need to call your IT department (who would ID you e.g. by voice or in person) to get the random password from them, and you are up and running. In the mean time, your data is genuinely out of your reach. You can unlock your device and tell them any passwords you know, and they won’t get your data.
“Are you passionate about the Open Web? Do you want to help protect the Internet’s tremendous socioeconomic benefits through policy and advocacy?”
Mozilla is looking for an Internet Policy Manager, to work with the wonderful Raegan in the EU. If you know anyone who might be suitable, please encourage them to apply :-)
Version 2.4 of Mozilla’s CA Policy has now been published. This document incorporates by reference the Common CCADB Policy 1.0 and the Mozilla CCADB Policy 1.0, two new documents which govern our use of the Common CA Database which we hope several root programs will use to ease the administration burden.
This seems pretty super-geeky, but having clear, current, enforceable policies regarding the CAs and root certificates in our root program is important for us to continue to be open and transparent about how we run it, and to enable us to continue to drive the security of the web (which depends on the certificate system) in a positive direction.
The policy had not changed for a long time before this update, so this update addressed issues which were uncontroversial and/or urgent. The next job is to rearrange it into a more logical order and then, after that, for version 2.5, we will be looking at some of the more difficult and longer-term policy challenges we face in this space. Here’s the issue tracker if you want to get some idea of what those are. :-)
Jacob Hoffman-Andrews (of Let’s Encrypt): “I tried signing up for certspotter alerts for a domain and got a timeout on the signup page.”
Andrew Ayer (of CertSpotter): “Oh, dear. Which domain?”
Jacob Hoffman-Andrews: “hoffman-andrews.com”
Andrew Ayer: “Do you have a lot of certs for that domain?”
Jacob Hoffman-Andrews: “Oh yeah, I totally do!”
Andrew Ayer: “How many?”
Jacob Hoffman-Andrews: “A couple of hundred thousand.”
Andrew Ayer: “Yeah, that would do it…”
So said Peter Kreeft, commenting on three very deep sentences from C.S. Lewis on the problems and solutions of the human condition.
Suppose you are asked to classify four things –
- magic, and
– and put them into two categories. Most people would choose “religion and magic” and “science and technology”. Read Justin Taylor’s short article to see why the deeper commonalities are between “religion and science” and “magic and technology”.
I spoke on Sunday at the FOSDEM conference in the Policy devroom about the Mozilla Root Program, and about the various CA-related incidents of the past 5 years. Here’s the video (48 minutes, WebM):
Given that this only happened two days ago, I should give kudos to the FOSDEM people for their high quality and efficient video processing operation.
The best computer game ever, bar none, “UFO: Enemy Unknown” (known as “XCOM: UFO Defense” in the USA) is currently available for free for the next day or so from the Humble Bundle website. And once you have a legit copy of the data files, you can play it (on OSes other than Windows, as well!) using the OpenXCOM reimplementation of the game engine. Launch Interceptors!
Like every year for the past ten or more (except for a couple of years when my wife was due to have a baby), I’ll be going to FOSDEM, the premier European grass-roots FLOSS conference. This year, I’m speaking on the Policy and Legal Issues track, with the title “Reflections on Adjusting Trust: Tales of running an open and transparent Certificate Authority Program“. The talk is on Sunday at 12.40pm in the Legal and Policy Issues devroom (H.1301), and I’ll be talking about how we use the Mozilla root program to improve the state of security and encryption on the Internet, and the various CA misdemeanours we have found along the way. Hope to see you there :-)
Note that the Legal and Policy Issues devroom is usually scarily popular; arrive early if you want to get inside.
Secure Open Source is a project, stewarded by Mozilla, which provides manual source code audits for key pieces of open source software. Recently, we had a trusted firm of auditors, Cure53, examine the dovecot IMAP server software, which runs something like two thirds of all IMAP servers worldwide. (IMAP is the preferred modern protocol for accessing an email store.)
The big news is that they found… nothing. Well, nearly nothing. They managed to scrape up 3 “vulnerabilities” of Low severity.
Despite much effort and thoroughly all-encompassing approach, the Cure53 testers only managed to assert the excellent security-standing of Dovecot. More specifically, only three minor security issues have been found in the codebase, thus translating to an exceptionally good outcome for Dovecot, and a true testament to the fact that keeping security promises is at the core of the Dovecot development and operations.
Now, if we didn’t trust our auditors and they came back empty handed, we might suspect them of napping on the job. But we do, and so this sort of result, while seemingly a “failure” or a “waste of money”, is the sort of thing we’d like to see more of! We will know Secure Open Source, and other programs to improve the security of FLOSS code, are having an impact when more and more security audits come back with this sort of result. So well done to the dovecot maintainers; may they be the first of many.
I just sent something very like the following to someone buying a house from me:
This text is to tell you that I just emailed you a PDF copy of the fax my solicitor just sent your solicitor, containing the email he originally sent last week which your solicitor claimed he didn’t get, plus the confirmation that the fax was received.
The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization which provides two useful services.
Firstly, they provide “fiscal sponsor” services for free software projects which wish to benefit from being a non-profit but which do not have the resources to set up their own Foundation. They have over 35 member projects which they support. If you use WINE, Samba, Mercurial, Inkscape, Git or any of the others, you can thank and support those projects by supporting SFC.
Secondly, if you believe that copyleft has a role (and it doesn’t even have to be an exclusive role) to play in the free software licensing ecosystem, you have an interest in making sure that copyleft licenses do not de facto become the same as permissive ones. That requires working with companies to help them understand their quid pro quo obligations to share and, rarely, taking them to court when flagrant violations are not corrected after significant time. The SFC is basically the only organization which does this valuable work, and that fact makes companies (sadly) less likely to support it.
This means that SFC greatly relies on support from individuals. I have just re-committed as a supporter for 2017 and I hope many of my readers will do the same.