The internet rests on a foundation of core infrastructure components that make global communication possible. Among these load-bearing elements are DNS, DNSSEC, BGP, BGPsec, WebPKI, RPKI, transparency logs, IXPs, Autonomous Systems, and various registries. This includes critical governance bodies like ICANN and IANA, standards bodies like the CA/Browser Forum. These systems don’t just enable the internet – they are the internet, forming the critical backbone that allows us to establish secure connections, route traffic reliably, and maintain operational trust across the global network.

The PKI and transparency mechanisms that support these systems, particularly WebPKI, RPKI, and Certificate Transparency, are especially critical load-bearing elements essential to delivering the internet’s net value. When these foundational elements fail, they don’t just impact individual services – they can undermine the security and reliability of the entire internet infrastructure and erode the fundamental trust that billions of users and organizations place in the internet. This trust, once damaged, is difficult to rebuild and can have lasting consequences for how people interact with and rely upon digital services.

This foundational role makes the governance of root programs, which oversee these trust systems, absolutely critical. Yet recent incidents and historical patterns suggest we need to improve how we approach their governance. While no root program is perfect, and some have made significant strides in adopting product-focused practices and proactive risk management, there remains substantial room for improvement across the ecosystem. This framework isn’t meant to dismiss current efforts, but rather to synthesize best practices and push the conversation forward about how we can collectively strengthen these critical trust anchors.

To transform root programs from reactive administrative functions into proactive product-driven systems, we need a clear framework for change. This starts with defining our core mission, establishing a vision for the future state we want to achieve, and outlining the strategic pillars that will get us there.

Mission

To safeguard global trust in internet infrastructure by managing systemic risks, driving technical innovation, fostering transparent governance, and building durable systems that serve generations to come.

Vision

A resilient and adaptive trust ecosystem where:

• Governance is proactive and risk-aware, balancing technical rigor with user-centric principles
• Infrastructure and processes are continuously validated, transparent, and simplified
• Collaboration fosters innovation to address emerging challenges and deliver long-term security

Strategy

1. Transparency and Accountability

• Establish robust public verifiability for all CA operations, leveraging tools like transparency logs and continuous compliance monitoring
• Communicate decisions on inclusion, removal, reentry, and policy changes openly, ensuring stakeholder trust
• Build mechanisms for regular stakeholder feedback and confidence measurement, ensuring the ecosystem remains responsive to both technical and user needs

2. Integrated Risk Management

• Apply blast radius management to minimize the impact of failures, for example by segmenting trust dependencies and ensuring risks remain contained
• Use real-time monitoring and automated enforcement to detect and mitigate systemic risks
• Implement standardized processes for risk assessment and mitigation

3. Proactive Governance

• Shift from reactive to anticipatory governance by identifying potential risks and implementing early countermeasures
• Leverage automated monitoring and enforcement to prevent and catch issues before they become incidents
• Maintain clear lifecycle management processes for all ecosystem participants

4. Modernization and Simplification

• Establish WebPKI governance primacy for included roots and minimize cross-ecosystem trust relationships
• Limit what each CA is trusted for, reducing complexity and narrowing the scope of potential failures
• Employ these measures as part of broader blast radius management strategies

5. Collaborative Ecosystem Building

• Support and fund foundational open-source projects and critical infrastructure that the ecosystem depends on
• Implement shared accountability mechanisms, ensuring all ecosystem participants bear responsibility for maintaining trust and integrity
• Encourage CAs to align their policies not only with their own standards but also with aggregated internet governance policies, and best practices, especially for global use cases like TLS
• Partner with browsers, CAs, and researchers to co-develop solutions for current and emerging threats
• Foster an environment of mutual respect and constructive partnership

6. Commitment to Continuous Improvement

• Drive decisions through data collection, measurement, and empirical analysis
• Evolve policies based on quantitative feedback, incident analyses, and advancements in technology
• Regularly reassess and refine program criteria to remain relevant and effective
• Maintain clear processes for managing organizational transitions

The Stakes Are Higher Than Ever

The history of CA failures tells a sobering story – major CA distrust events occur on average every 1.23 years, each one threatening the foundation of trust that enables secure internet communication. These aren’t isolated incidents but rather represent recurring patterns of systemic failures in CA operations and governance.

Consider the range of critical failures we’ve seen: From DigiNotar’s complete infrastructure compromise in 2011 leading to rogue Google certificates to TURKTRUST’s “accidental” intermediate certificates in 2013, to government-affiliated CAs repeatedly undermining trust through deliberate actions or “accidents.” Take for example the ICP-Brasil case, where a root that had announced the end of SSL issuance continued to issue certificates months later – demonstrating how root programs’ decisions (or lack thereof) to maintain trust in roots that should no longer be part of the WebPKI can create unnecessary risks.

These incidents follow disturbingly consistent patterns:

• Security breaches and infrastructure compromises that enable unauthorized certificate issuance
• Systematic misissuance of certificates that undermine the entire trust model
• Poor incident response handling that compounds initial failures
• Non-compliance with industry standards despite clear requirements
• Operational vulnerabilities that go unaddressed until it’s too late
• Deceptive actions that breach the fundamental trust of the ecosystem

The Economic Reality

The current ecosystem suffers from fundamentally misaligned incentives. Root programs are typically run by browser vendors as a necessary cost of doing business, often competing with commercial priorities for resources and attention. Meanwhile, CAs face strong pressure to maintain their trusted status but weak incentives to uphold rigorous security practices. When security failures occur, users bear the cost while CAs often face minimal consequences. This economic reality is compounded by an ineffective auditing system where CAs select and pay their own auditors – reminiscent of the dynamics that enabled financial scandals like Wirecard and Enron.

The Long Tail Problem

A particularly concerning aspect of the current system is the “long tail” of rarely-used CAs. Many root certificates in browser trust stores belong to CAs that issue only dozens to hundreds of certificates annually, yet they maintain the same broad trust as major CAs issuing millions. These low-volume CAs pose risks that far outweigh their utility, creating unnecessary attack surfaces in our trust infrastructure. Regular assessment of each CA’s ongoing value to the ecosystem, balanced against their inherent risks, should inform continued inclusion in trust stores. This approach ensures the ecosystem maintains an appropriate balance between accessibility and security.

The Product-Centric Approach

To address these challenges, root programs must evolve from administrative oversight roles to become proactive, risk-managed entities. Here’s how a product-centric framework can transform root program governance:

1. Transparency and Accountability

• Implement robust public verifiability for all CA operations
• Leverage transparency logs and continuous compliance monitoring
• Ensure open communication about inclusion, removal, and policy changes
• Require automated reporting of security incidents and operational compliance

2. Blast Radius Management

• Segment trust dependencies to contain potential failures
• Implement dedicated hierarchies for specific use cases
• Limit CA trust scope to reduce complexity and narrow failure impacts
• Deploy real-time monitoring and automated enforcement

3. Risk-Based Governance

• Move from reactive to anticipatory governance
• Apply different levels of scrutiny based on CA context and risk profile
• Regularly assess whether each CA’s utility justifies its risks
• Implement meaningful technical restrictions on certificate issuance

4. Modernization and Simplification

• Establish and maintain WebPKI governance primacy
• Implement dedicated hierarchies for specific use cases
• Limit CA trust scope to reduce complexity and narrow failure impacts
• Deploy real-time monitoring and automated enforcement

5. Shared Accountability

• Support and fund critical infrastructure and monitoring
• Foster collaboration between browsers, CAs, and researchers
• Establish clear responsibilities across all ecosystem participants
• Create incentives that align with security goals
• Balance rigorous oversight with constructive partnership
• Develop clear processes for managing CA transitions and lifecycle events

Measuring Success

Like any product, root programs need clear metrics for success:

1. Risk Reduction

• Track mis-issuance rates and time-to-remediate
• Measure decrease in systemic vulnerabilities
• Monitor adoption of proactive security measures
• Track stakeholder confidence through regular surveys

2. Ecosystem Resistance

• Assess recovery capabilities from disruptions
• Track implementation and effectiveness of blast radius containment measures
• Monitor CA inclusion, removal, and reentry success rates

3. Operational Excellence

• Monitor CA inclusion and removal process efficiency
• Track adoption of modern security and governance practices
• Measure response times to security incidents and evaluate the thoroughness of incident handling
• Evaluate lifecycle management process consistency and post-incident improvements

Lifecycle Excellence

The sustainability of root programs depends on having clear, repeatable processes for managing the complete lifecycle of CAs – from inclusion to potential removal. This includes:

• Standardized onboarding and transition procedures
• Regular assessment checkpoints
• Clear criteria for maintaining trusted status
• Efficient processes for handling CA turnover
• Proactive planning for ecosystem evolution

The Trust Paradox

One of the most challenging aspects of root program governance is the inherent contradiction between trust and security. As we’ve seen with government-affiliated CAs and others, institutional incentives often directly conflict with security goals. A product-centric approach helps address this by:

• Implementing consistent risk evaluation frameworks that account for different institutional incentives and constraints
• Requiring proactive enforcement rather than post-incident reactions
• Creating clear, measurable criteria for ongoing trust
• Establishing automated compliance checks and monitoring
• Establishing feedback loops between governance bodies, CAs, and end-users to maintain alignment

The Path Forward

Root programs must continue evolving beyond reactive governance and inconsistent enforcement. By adopting a product mindset that emphasizes continuous improvement, measurable outcomes, and proactive risk management, we can build an even more resilient trust ecosystem.

Immediate actions should include:

• Implementing automated compliance monitoring
• Establishing clear criteria for CA risk assessment
• Developing robust blast radius management strategies
• Creating transparent processes for trust decisions
• Supporting proper funding for monitoring infrastructure
• Implementing standardized CA lifecycle management processes
• Building collaborative frameworks that balance accountability with mutual trust

Conclusion

The security of the internet depends on root programs functioning effectively. By treating them as products rather than administrative functions, we can build a more secure, transparent, and reliable trust ecosystem. This transformation won’t be easy, but the cost of maintaining the status quo – as evidenced by the long history of failures – is simply too high.

The question isn’t whether we need root programs – we absolutely do. The question is how we can continue evolving them to meet the security challenges of today’s internet. A product-centric approach, focused on proactive risk management and measurable outcomes, offers our best path forward.

Following my recent post about another CA failing the “Turing test” with a likely MITM certificate issuance, let’s examine a troubling pattern: the role of government-run and government-affiliated CAs in the WebPKI ecosystem. This incident brings attention to Microsoft’s root program, what is clear is a fundamental contradiction persists: we’re trusting entities whose institutional incentives often directly conflict with the security goals of the WebPKI.

The Value Proposition

Let me be clear—CAs and root programs serve critical functions in the WebPKI. As I discussed in my article about Trust On First Use, attempting to build trust without them leads to even worse security outcomes. The issue isn’t whether we need CAs—we absolutely do. The question is whether our current trust model, which treats all CAs as equally trustworthy regardless of their incentives and constraints, actually serves our security goals.

The Core Contradiction

History has repeatedly shown that the temptation to abuse these capabilities is simply too great. Whether it’s decision-makers acting in their perceived national interest or CAs that fail to understand—or choose to ignore—the consequences of their actions, we keep seeing the same patterns play out.

Consider that a CA under government oversight faces fundamentally different pressures than one operating purely as a business. While both might fail, the failure modes and their implications for users differ dramatically. Yet our root programs largely pretend these differences don’t exist.

The DarkMatter Paradox

The removal of DarkMatter as a CA due to its affiliation with the UAE government, despite its clean record in this context, starkly contrasts with the continued trust granted to other government-affiliated CAs with documented failures. This inconsistency highlights a deeper flaw in root programs: Rules are often applied reactively, addressing incidents after they occur, rather than through proactive, continuous, and consistent enforcement.

A History of Predictable Failures

If you read yesterday’s post, you may recall my 2011 post on the number of government-run or affiliated CAs. The intervening years have given us a clear pattern of failures. Whether through compromise, willful action, or “accidents” (take that as you will), here are just the incidents I can recall off the top of my head—I’m sure there are more:

• DigiNotar (2011): Complete compromise leading to rogue certificates for Google and demonstrated MITM attacks against Iranian users
• TURKTRUST (2013): “Accidental” intermediate certificates
• China’s Great Firewall: Systematic exploitation of trust through encouraging domestic browsers not to validate certificates to enable MiTM
• CNNIC (2015): Unauthorized intermediate issuance
• ANSSI (2015): Deliberate MITM certificates
• Kazakhstan Government CA (2019): Attempted forced root installation
• Telecom Egypt (2019): Systematic traffic interception
• ICP-Brasil (2024): Announced end of SSL issuance in August, issued likely MiTM google.com certificate in November

The Economics of (In)Security

The fundamental problem isn’t just technical—it’s economic. While some root programs genuinely prioritize security, inconsistencies across the ecosystem remain a critical challenge. The broader issue is not simply about convenience but about conflicting incentives—balancing compatibility, regulatory pressures, and market demands often at the expense of doing what is best for end users.

CAs face strong incentives to maintain their trusted status but relatively weak incentives to uphold the rigorous security practices users expect. The cost of their security failure is largely borne by users, while the benefits of looser practices accrue directly to the CA. Audits, much like those in financial scandals such as Wirecard or Enron, often serve as window dressing. With CAs selecting and paying their auditors, incentives rarely align with rigorous enforcement.

The long tail of rarely-discussed CAs is particularly concerning. Many root certificates in browser trust stores belong to CAs that issue only dozens to hundreds of certificates annually, not the thousands or millions that major CAs produce. Some haven’t issued a certificate in ages but retain the capability to do so—and with it, the ability to compromise security for months or longer. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say these low-volume CAs pose risks far outweighing their utility.

Certificate Transparency: Necessary but Not Sufficient

While Certificate Transparency has been invaluable in helping identify incidents (including the latest ICP-Brasil case), it’s not a complete solution. Its limitations include:

• Reactive nature: Violations are identified only after they occur.
• Monitoring challenges: Effective oversight is resource-intensive and depends on a small community of volunteers.
• Incomplete coverage: Not all certificates are logged, leaving gaps in visibility.
• Poorly funded: We have too few logs and monitors to have confidence about the long-term survivability of the ecosystem.

The Limits of Technical Controls

Some browsers have implemented technical guardrails for some CA mistakes in their validation logic, such as basic certificate linting and rules, to reject certificates that don’t pass basic checks but nothing more granular. There have been discussions about imposing additional restrictions on CAs based on their relationship to government oversight or regulatory jurisdictions. However, these proposals face significant pushback, partly due to the political consequences for browser vendors and partly due to concerns about basing trust decisions on “future crime” scenarios. As a result, the WebPKI remains stuck with a one-size-fits-all approach to CA trust.

The Monitoring Gap

The challenges extend beyond malicious behavior to include operational oversight. For instance, in August 2024, ICP-Brasil formally announced they would cease issuing publicly trusted SSL/TLS certificates. Yet by November, they issued a rogue certificate for google.com. This outcome was predictable—public CT logs in 2020 revealed their consistent inability to handle basic operational and issuance requirements, including issuing certificates with invalid DNS names and malformed URLs. Despite these red flags, they remained trusted.

How many other CAs operate outside their stated parameters without detection? Patterns of technical incompetence frequently precede security incidents, but warnings are often ignored.

Required Reforms

To address these systemic issues, root programs must adopt the following measures:

1. Consistent Standards: Apply appropriate scrutiny to CAs based on their operational and institutional context.
2. Swift Response Times: Minimize delays between discovery and action.
3. Proactive Enforcement: Treat red flags as early warnings, not just post-incident justifications.
4. Technical Controls: Implement meaningful restrictions to limit the scope of certificate issuance.
5. Automated Compliance: Require CAs to report security incidents, and operational, and ongoing compliance while continuingly to monitor them via automated checks for compliance.
6. Value Assessment: Regularly evaluate whether each CA’s utility justifies its risks and remove those that do not.

Protecting Yourself

Until the ecosystem adopts consistent and enforceable security measures:

• Windows users should monitor Microsoft’s root program decisions.
• Enterprises should use the Microsoft distrust store and group policies.
• Everyone should stay informed about CA incidents and their handling.

When Will We Learn?

The “Turing Test” reference in my previous post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it points to serious questions: How many more failures will it take before we fundamentally reform the WebPKI? Even if we know what’s needed, can we realistically create a system that treats government-affiliated CAs differently – or even reliably identify such affiliations – given the complex web of international relations, corporate structures and potential diplomatic fallout?

With regulatory frameworks like eIDAS 2.0 potentially constraining security measures browsers can take, vigilance from the security community is more critical than ever. Stay vigilant, and keep watching those CT logs. Someone has to.

Certificate Authorities on the web are tasked with validating that the websites we visit are truly associated with the domains that serve the content that makes up that website. As a result, we gain confidence that we know which domains we are communicating with and can trust that no one else can view our interactions with them.

CAs are trusted because user agents—typically web browsers—chose to delegate the “Trust On First Use” (TOFU) problem to these authorities. A user agent acts on behalf of the user, aiming to serve and protect the user’s interests while navigating the internet. In this context, ensuring secure communication with the correct site is managed through this delegation of domain control verification to CAs.

Many often forget that a CA’s role does not stop at the time of certificate issuance; they also manage revocations when keys are compromised or replaced, the certificates are issued in error, or when they are not compliant with the industry standards the CA has agreed to meet as a publicly trusted CA—a responsibility pivotal to maintaining the trust billions place in them.

To illustrate this further, not only is this their responsibility, but they also have obligations under the audit regimes they operate under. Depending on the scenario, they may need to revoke the certificates within 24 hours to 5 days.  When you are potentially talking about tens of thousands or millions of certificates, this requires both good engineering and preparation.

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” — Benjamin Franklin

In this post, I want to delve into how two different CAs approached issues in handling two misissuances involving failures to meet the requirements for domain control verification. The contrast between these two incidents is striking and highlights the importance of preparation, good engineering, and strategic decision-making in crisis management.

Case Studies

Let’s Encrypt: A Proactive Approach

Let’s Encrypt demonstrated exemplary crisis management during their 2020 domain control verification-related incident. Through compensating controls, they internally discovered a bug in their domain control verification logic. With the right data, tooling, and processes in place, they were able to act decisively—filing the initial incident quickly, analyzing the scope and impact of the incident, and revoking over 1.7 million out of 3 million impacted certificates within hours. They were able to do this because the service and organization was built from day one to make it possible. One of the most telling elements of their response was their ability to quickly determine which certificates had already been replaced and which were still in use. This information guided their communication strategy and helped identify which certificates were safe to revoke immediately. Furthermore, within the 24-hour revocation requirement, they filed a subsequent delayed revocation incident. 

This captured why the remaining certificates were not immediately revoked and when they would all expire, helping browsers and the community understand not only that they had done their research but also how their handling of the issue could impact the web and what the exposure of the delayed revocation represented.

DigiCert: A Reactive Approach

In contrast, DigiCert’s response to their domain control-related misissuance highlights several areas for improvement. The issue had persisted for an extended period and was identified externally, rather than through internal engineering and compliance processes designed to catch such errors.

DigiCert also struggled with the logistics of mass revocations. Faced with tens of thousands of certificates, they had difficulty determining which could be revoked quickly, which were actually impacted, and as a result initially opted to start a plan to revoke all certificates within a 24-hours. Though they started this clock when they figured out the scope of the incident, it took them a while to do so, suggesting a lack of preparation for incidents. They also appear to have done this all without a clear strategy to mitigate the customer impact and through a sequence of events ultimately rolled out a 5-day delay on top of the initial plan. This all led to the unusual step of a subscriber filing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the revocation, which set a troubling precedent and complicated the situation further.

A significant challenge was that many DigiCert customers do not utilize automated certificate lifecycle management extensively, which is essential during such incidents. This issue reflects back on DigiCert’s own processes, as manual lifecycle management is the default rather than the exception.

This incident raises questions about DigiCert’s preparedness, including whether they maintain a comprehensive list of all valid certificates, track replacements, and monitor customer use of lifecycle management. It also prompts a reflection on their internal review processes and test automation for compliance with CA/Browser Forum Requirements.

“Learn all you can from the mistakes of others. You won’t have time to make them all yourself.” – Alfred Sheinwold

It also makes me wonder about the type of design review process that was in place, the description in the incident sounds like a fix was applied at the user interface level which no serious engineer would do. Beyond that, it’s also unclear what kind of test automation is incorporated into their engineering processes to ensure compliance with associated requirements. For example, it would be quite reasonable for the process to mandate unit tests for all normative level requirements from the CA/Browser Forum Requirements and associated IETF documents. This would ensure that initial and subsequent releases meet requirements, which is particularly crucial for an organization with many engineers who may not all be experts in every requirement.

Engineering Readiness and Strategic Decision-Making

These case studies highlight critical lessons in engineering readiness and crisis management. Systems designed for scale and availability must be built with proactive planning, automation, and testing in mind. The reality is that systems designed for both scale and availability are also operated with engineering readiness as a core tenant. If you read the O’Reilly Site Reliability Engineering book, you will notice the same undertow of planning, automating, testing, and preparing, that is because the only way to have a reliable system or process is to engineer it to be that way.

Beyond that, if you’ve ever been on call, you understand how crucial it is that both mundane and unexpected issues be prevented and automated so you are able to respond effectively or even better — never experience entire classes of problems as you learn how to operate a CA. This is why, following Let’s Encrypt’s 2020 incident and their second mass revocation in 2021—for certificates that were one second longer than their policy allowed —they began exploring ways to ensure this never happens again. This is what led us to  Automated Renewal and Installation (ARI) which aims to make it possible for these unplanned certificate renewals boring. This proactive approach aligns with the principle:

“An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” – Orlando A. Battista

The browsers have long stressed the importance of blameless postmortems and a culture of self-improvement they do this because without that people within an organization do not feel empowered to do the right thing. At the same time how an organization responds to an incident is very telling about its culture, transparency, operational excellence, focus on compliance, and engineering practices and as such serves as a useful indicator of an organization’s competence and suitability to be part of the threat model of the internet. 

At the last CA/Browser Forum Face to Face meeting the Chrome team talked a bit about this.

Lessons Learned

These incidents highlight several key lessons for CAs, including the importance of automated systems, transparent communication, and continuous learning.

1. Preparation is Key: Automated systems, and tooling to support and predefined response strategies are crucial. For effective incident management, CAs should develop and test incident response plans regularly to ensure rapid action during a crisis.

2. Transparency Builds Trust: During crises, maintaining open and regular communication is essential. CAs should ensure that their communication strategies are clear and consistent to build and maintain trust with stakeholders and the community.

3. Learn from Others: Assign teams and individuals to conduct regular reviews of both historical and current incidents. Have them present these findings to the organization and rotate this responsibility across different disciplines to ensure knowledge is shared.

Conclusion

Acknowledging that DigiCert displayed a level of transparency during their incident, it’s clear that the event still exposed significant gaps in their compliance and engineering practices. Transparency, while crucial, is only one component of effective crisis management. The DigiCert case illustrates that even when stakeholders are kept informed, underlying deficiencies in operational procedures and compliance frameworks can compromise both the efficacy of the response and the overall security posture.

“The decisions you make reflect the priorities you have.”

Some recommendations for CAs looking to learn from this incident include:

• DigiCert’s incident highlighted the need for more robust compliance mechanisms. Regularly updating compliance protocols and ensuring they are in strict alignment with industry standards is essential. This includes periodic reviews and updates to incorporate new regulatory requirements and best practices.
• The incident revealed that while DigiCert was transparent, there was a lack of sufficient engineering controls to prevent or mitigate the impact of such issues. Implementing rigorous engineering best practices such as continuous integration, automated testing, and detailed, proactive monitoring of systems can help prevent similar incidents.
• While DigiCert was forthcoming about the issue, their response strategy could benefit from a more structured approach that includes predefined escalation paths, detailed role assignments, and rapid response teams specialized in different aspects of the crisis management process.
• Beyond immediate crisis management, fostering a culture prioritizing continuous improvement and learning from past mistakes is vital. This involves regular training, simulations of potential issues, and a blame-free environment that encourages reporting and swift resolution of potential threats.

In conclusion, effective crisis management involves not only responding to incidents but also implementing robust preventive measures. Regular updates to designs, implementations, tooling, improved engineering controls, and a culture of continuous improvement are essential for minimizing the likelihood and impact of future incidents.

Today, DigiCert’s mass revocation is in the news, so I thought it would be worthwhile to explore the rules for a CA when it comes to revoking a subscriber certificate and the choices and constraints a CA faces in circumstances like this.

First, let’s examine the types of issues that might lead a CA to revoke a certificate before its natural expiration. Broadly speaking, there are two categories of these issues: 

Externally identified Issues, these start from what is called a Certificate Problem Report (CPR), they may originate from: Subscribers, or Relying parties, application software suppliers, and other third parties

Internally identified issues, these may be identified by: Pre-issuance checks, Post-issuance checks, or Internal periodic reviews

Problem reports from external entities almost always require some minimal level of investigation. An exception might be cases where the reporter has access to the private key and requests a certificate be revoked, this could come from the subscriber, or someone who has gained access to the private key. Even in these cases you often need to do multiple communication round trips because requests often do not contain sufficient information to authenticate the request from the outset.

There are other cases too; for example, sometimes a problem report claims unauthorized issuance of a certificate, but it turns out the reporter had authorized it, perhaps by signing up for a CDN or SaaS offering that uses that CA. In these cases you might need to contact the person who requested the certificate, or the service provider for more information or as the reporter to prove control of the domain to verify your authorization to request the revocation — again introducing a few round trips. 

However, most problem reports are spam or requests to take down a website. In this second case, if a CA has a policy about revoking domains that serve such content then it also needs some level of investigation. On that check out this post on the CA’s role in phishing mitigation on why CAs should stay out of this class of issue altogether. 

These are just a few examples of certificate problem reports a CA might see but there are more, one of the most actionable is a claim that there was a violation of the requirements that a CA must meet, such as including incorrect information in a certificate or using a certificate profile with a wrong extension, or using a domain control verification process that does not meet requirements.

The workflow for these requests is straightforward, but it still requires some investigation. The questions that need to be answered before taking action include things like: When was the certificate issued? What rules were in force at that time? What data was used when validating the entitlement of the requester? What version of the software implemented the validation at the time of issuance? Is the reporter’s interpretation of the requirement technically correct?

This is why the Baseline Requirements (BRs) allow CAs some time for an investigation:

CA SHOULD revoke a certificate within 24 hours and MUST revoke a Certificate within 5 days

NOTE: Here is a conversation on the last changes to this text, searching the forums is always a good way to validate what the intent was at the time of authorship.

Let’s look at an example here, in 2020 Let’s Encrypt had a misissuance due to a bug in CAA handling. This issue was found internally through what we would call mitigating controls, a process that exists to double-check you are doing the right thing.

That’s not a lot of time, especially if such a report comes in on New Year’s Eve. CAs maintain on-call rotations to investigate issues, but it’s easy to imagine that from time to time, an investigation might take longer than 24 hours to fully complete. Despite this, the CAs shouldn’t have an infinite amount of time for such investigations, which is why the text limits the time to revocation to a maximum of 5 days.

Let’s explore what this might look like in the case of a real incident. On February 29, 2020, Let’s Encrypt through an internal review discovered an issue in their domain control verification logic and kicked off an investigation, and set off to do a revocation of over 3 million certificates on that same day they discovered the issue they announced their plan to revoke the affected certificates. Revocations began on March 4, 2020, and by the March 5, 2020 deadline, they had revoked 1,706,505 certificates. Network scans revealed that a large portion of the remaining 1,003,596 certificates were still in active use.

Due to concerns over the potential impact revocation would have on these active sites, they filed an incident for delayed revocation just before the deadline. These remaining certificates either expired or were revoked by May 29, 2020, after which the ticket remained open for community discussion and further analysis.

Let’s Encrypt did many things right here, including implementing compensating controls to detect issues internally, preparing to analyze the scope of impact immediately, and revoking the certificates they could without causing disruption as soon as possible. When it became clear that they would not meet the deadline requirements, they filed a bug to document their non-compliance with the obligations before the deadline lapsed. Moreover, they communicated clearly and regularly throughout the entire process until the issue was resolved.

But what about the missed revocation deadline!?! The reality is that delayed revocations happen, It’s not ideal, but they do happen. What is important is how a CA deals with them, and how credibly. Let’s Encrypt executed like a well-oiled machine here; no one complained. (They did this all without getting distrusted, for more on how CAs usually get distrusted see.)

There are other cases where delayed revocations were done as well, for example in 2019 Apple, Google, and GoDaddy were all hit by a bug in EJBCA, all of which had some delayed revocations, and while there may have been some challenges in each of those cases, what you could tell is that like Let’s Encrypt they were being proactive, transparent, and working towards addressing the issue responsibly and when you looked at their broader history there was not a sign of systemic failures.

OK so if you are in the CA industry right now you should be saying, but Ryan, What about the Certificate Problem Reports response requirements?! This Digicert issue was reported externally, those requirements are also relevant if so you are right, these requirements say:

The CA SHALL maintain a continuous 24×7 ability to accept and respond to revocation requests and Certificate Problem Reports.

And …

The period from receipt of the Certificate Problem Report or revocation-related notice to published revocation MUST NOT exceed the time frame set forth in Section 4.9.1.1. The date selected by the CA SHOULD consider the following criteria:

– The nature of the alleged problem (scope, context, severity, magnitude, risk of harm);

– The consequences of revocation (direct and collateral impacts to Subscribers and Relying Parties);

– The number of Certificate Problem Reports received about a particular Certificate or Subscriber;

– The entity making the complaint (for example, a complaint from a law enforcement official that a Web site is engaged in illegal activities should carry more weight than a complaint from a consumer alleging that they didn’t receive the goods they ordered); and

– Relevant legislation.

While In Section 4.9.1.1 it says

With the exception of Short-lived Subscriber Certificates, the CA SHALL revoke a Certificate within 24 hours and use the corresponding CRLReason (see Section 7.2.2) if one or more of the following occurs:

If you’re paying attention, you might be thinking to yourself, “Wait a minute, doesn’t that mean, since the request came in from an external reporter, that the certificate should be revoked within 24 hours?”

Well, yes, it does! This totally makes sense in some cases, for example, if a notice comes in of a key compromise that has all the required detail to confirm it, but as we discussed above, requests received externally often require some level of verification. This begs the question is 24 hours enough time to handle that or not? But one thing is for sure arguing that the rules are wrong or that the rules should be changed during an incident response is a recipe for disaster.

So what would I have done if I were DigiCert? I would have stopped issuance as soon as the issue was identified. I would have then set engineers to work on resolving the issue in the right way. In parallel, I would have prepared a preliminary incident report, noting that I had stopped the issuance. I would have also noted any confusion I may have had about the language in the requirements in that incident report, I would have then committed to start revoking following the requirements, and before the 24-hour clock expired, I would have started replacing and revoking the certificates that could be revoked safely. If it was clear that despite active, good faith, best efforts, the revocation was not going to be completed in time, then, I would have filed a delayed revocation incident before that clock expired—essentially following the same playbook Let’s Encrypt used back in 2020.

After successfully navigating the incident, I would have worked within the CA/Browser Forum to discuss this language and make sure it was it is clearer why the difference exists or change it to align with the other text.

We did not really tackle the topic of ‘Internally Identified Issues’? Though I do mentioned them above but didn’t really explain them in detail, so let’s see if I can capture them without rambling too much.

As I mentioned earlier, there are several classes. In the Let’s Encrypt case, they had some compensating controls around design reviews that identified an issue. When it comes to cases like this, it is pretty straightforward; by the time you have completed the design review, you are sure there is an issue at play, and the clock starts ticking.

Regarding pre-certificate linting, it’s a failure in your linting management if an issue that could or should have been caught by your linting gets issued; this is more akin to a design defect than a CPR-like incident and as such it would certainly trigger the 24-hour clock.

Then there is post-issuance linting, which is used either as a spot check during data gathering for an audit, as a compensating control, for example, or when you are testing new rules for the linter or refining your linter policy configuration. These are by their very nature a lot more like a CPR in that, because you don’t have a fine-tuned policy for the linter, they too need some level of investigation.

To be clear, none of this appears related to the DigiCert incident, but they have not published a detailed incident report yet, which will include an end-to-end timeline and that may change some of this analysis but I wanted to try to cover the topic more holistically in this post before declaring victory tonight. 

Regardless of the above, the key takeaway is that if you are a CA or a customer of a CA, you need to be prepared to respond to an incident. One of the most useful actions you can take to achieve this is to adopt ACME for certificate lifecycle management. In particular, look for ACME implementations and CAs that support ARI, an extension of ACME. This extension enables a CA to signal to its enrollment clients that their certificate needs to be replaced sooner than expected, allowing them to roll certificates without requiring on-call incident response or causing downtime. The key takeaway is if you are a CA or a customer of a CA you need to be ready to respond to an incident. 

If you are interested in this topic, I recommend checking out the Sectigo “Root Causes” podcast which has a great conversation on Chrome’s recent presentation at the CA/Browser Forum on Incident Reporting. 

This presentation can be summarized as : 

– Incident reporting is an opportunity to demonstrate continuous improvement and to make the ecosystem more resilient and secure.

– We rely on the public incident reporting process to demonstrate that continued trust is justified.

– We think incident reporting should be boring (i.e. routine).

I hope this was helpful. Let me know if you think I missed something or if my analysis is wrong in some way. When processing prose as code, there are almost always slightly different takes, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out others feel differently than me on this issue.

Thanks to all of you who read this and provided feedback — it takes a village.

There’s a saying, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” This adage holds especially true in the context of WebPKI Certificate Authorities (CAs). Patterns of issues are one of the key tools that root programs use to understand what’s happening inside organizations. While audits are essential, they are often insufficient. Historical cases like Wirecard and Enron illustrate how audits can provide a partial and sometimes incorrect picture. Just as in most interactions in life, understanding who you are dealing with is crucial for successful navigation, especially when a power dynamic differential exists.

The Limitations of Audits

Currently, there are 86 organizations in the Microsoft root program. Most root programs have at most two people involved in monitoring and policing these 86 CAs. Technologies like Certificate Transparency make this possible, and open-source tools like Zlint and others use this data to find technically observable issues. However, these tools, combined with audits, only provide a small slice of the picture. Audits are backward-looking, not forward-looking. To understand where an organization is going, you need to understand how they operate and how focused they are on meeting their obligations.

This is where the nuanced side of root program management, the standards, and norms of the ecosystem, come into play. If we look at signals in isolation, they often appear trivial. However, when we examine them over a long enough period in the context of their neighboring signals, a more complete picture becomes apparent.

For example, consider a CA with minor compliance issues that seem trivial in isolation. A single misissued certificate might not seem alarming. But when you see a pattern of such incidents over time, combined with other issues like poor incident response or associations with controversial entities, the picture becomes clearer. These patterns reveal deeper issues within the organization, indicating potential systemic problems.

Root Program Challenges

Root programs face significant challenges in managing and monitoring numerous CAs. With limited personnel and resources, they rely heavily on technology and community vigilance. Certificate Transparency logs and tools like Zlint help identify and flag issues, but they are only part of the solution. Understanding the intentions and operational integrity of CAs requires a deeper dive into their practices and behaviors.

In the WebPKI ecosystem, context is everything. Root programs must consider the broader picture, evaluating CAs not just on isolated incidents but on their overall track record. This involves looking at how CAs handle their responsibilities, their commitment to security standards, and their transparency with the community. A CA that consistently falls short in these areas, even in seemingly minor ways, can pose a significant risk to the ecosystem.

Conclusion

Understanding the nuances of CA operations and focusing on their adherence to obligations is critical. By examining patterns over time and considering the broader context, root programs can better identify and address potential risks. The combination of audits, technological tools, and a keen understanding of organizational behavior forms a more comprehensive approach to maintaining trust in the WebPKI system.

It’s always important to remember that CAs need to be careful to keep this in mind. After all, it’s not just what you do, but what you think you do. Having your house in order is essential. By learning from past mistakes and focusing on continuous improvement, organizations can navigate public reporting obligations more effectively, ensuring they emerge stronger and more resilient.

Browser distrust events of WebPKI Certificate Authorities occur on average approximately every 1.23 years. These events highlight the critical role the WebPKI plays in maintaining secure communications on the internet and how failures within this system can have far-reaching implications. By examining these incidents, we can identify common patterns and underlying causes that lead to distrust, so as implementors and operators, we don’t end up repeating the same mistakes.

Identifying Common Patterns

As they say, those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it, so it is worthwhile to take a look at the history of CA distrust events to understand what, if any common patterns exist:

• Security Breaches: Involves unauthorized access to the CA’s infrastructure, leading to potential misuse of certificate issuance capabilities.
• Compromise of CA Infrastructure: Refers to breaches where the core infrastructure of the CA is compromised, resulting in unauthorized certificate issuance.
• Fraudulent Certificates: Occurs when certificates are issued without proper authorization, often leading to the impersonation of legitimate websites.
• Poor Incident Response Handling: Indicates that the CA failed to adequately respond to security incidents, exacerbating the impact of the initial problem.
• Misissuance of Certificates: Happens when CAs issue certificates incorrectly, either to the wrong entities or without proper validation, undermining trust.
• Facilitating Man-In-The-Middle Attacks: Refers to situations where misissued or improperly handled certificates enable attackers to intercept and alter communications.
• Improper Practices: Includes actions by CAs that deviate from accepted standards and best practices, leading to security risks.
• Deceptive Actions: Involves deliberate misleading actions by CAs, such as backdating certificates or other forms of dishonesty.
• Insecure Practices: Encompasses practices by CAs that fail to maintain adequate security controls, leading to vulnerabilities.
• Non-Compliance with Industry Standards: Indicates that the CA has repeatedly failed to adhere to industry standards and guidelines, leading to a loss of trust.
• Ties to Controversial Entities: Involves associations with entities that raise ethical or security concerns, leading to distrust.
• Limited Value to Ecosystem: Indicates that the CA does not provide significant value to the security ecosystem, often due to questionable practices or minimal compliance.
• Operational Vulnerabilities: Refers to weaknesses in the CA’s operational security, such as using default passwords or having exposed administrative tools, making them susceptible to attacks.

Browser Distrust Events

1. DigiNotar (2011):
   • Event: DigiNotar was hacked, leading to the issuance of fraudulent certificates. This prompted Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft to revoke trust in DigiNotar certificates.
   • Labels: Security Breaches, Compromise of CA Infrastructure, Fraudulent Certificates, Poor Incident Response Handling
   • Details: Mozilla Security Blog, Threatpost
2. TurkTrust (2013):
   • Event: It was discovered that TurkTrust mistakenly issued two intermediate CA certificates, one of which was used to issue a fraudulent certificate for *.google.com. This led to the distrust of the TurkTrust CA by major browsers.
   • Labels: Misissuance of Certificates, Facilitating Man-In-The-Middle Attacks
   • Details: Krebs on Security
3. ANSSI (French CA) (2013):
   • Event: It was discovered that ANSSI had issued a certificate to a network appliance company, which used it to inspect encrypted traffic. This led Google to revoke trust in the intermediate certificate.
   • Labels: Misissuance of Certificates, Facilitating Man-In-The-Middle Attacks
   • Details: Google Security Blog, Mozilla Blog
4. CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center) (2015):
   • Event: CNNIC was distrusted after it issued an intermediate certificate to MCS Holdings, which misused it to issue unauthorized certificates.
   • Labels: Misissuance of Certificates, Facilitating Man-In-The-Middle Attacks, Improper Practices
   • Details: Tom’s Hardware, Mozilla Security Blog, Mozilla Security Blog
5. WoSign and StartCom (2016):
   • Event: WoSign (and StartCom) were distrusted after discovering multiple security issues, including backdating certificates, lying, and improper issuance.
   • Labels: Misissuance of Certificates, Deceptive Actions, Insecure Practices
   • Details: Tom’s Hardware, Google Security Blog
6. Symantec (2017):
   • Event: Google announced a gradual distrust of Symantec certificates due to numerous instances of certificate misissuance, impacting millions of websites.
   • Labels: Misissuance of Certificates, Non-Compliance with Industry Standards, Poor Incident Response Handling
   • Details: Bleeping Computer, Google Security Blog
7. Certinomis (2019):
   • Event: Mozilla distrusted Certinomis due to numerous incidents of misissuance and poor handling of security concerns.
   • Labels: Misissuance of Certificates, Facilitating Man-In-The-Middle Attacks
   • Details: Venafi Blog
8. PROCERT (2020):
   • Event: Mozilla distrusted Procert due to numerous incidents of misissuance and poor handling of security concerns.
   • Labels: Non-Compliance with Industry Standards, Poor Incident Response Handling
   • Details: Venafi Blog
9. TrustCor (2022):
   • Event: TrustCor was distrusted due to concerns about its ties to companies linked to the US intelligence community and its failure to provide satisfactory responses to these concerns.
   • Labels: Ties to Controversial Entities, Limited Value to Ecosystem
   • Details: gHacks, SSLs.com, SSL Shopper
10. Camerfirma (2021):
    • Event: Mozilla and Google removed trust in Camerfirma due to a series of compliance issues and failure to maintain industry standards.
    • Labels: Non-Compliance with Industry Standards, Poor Incident Response Handling
    • Details: The Register
11. Visa (2022):
    • Event: Issues include incomplete security audits that are required according to the
    • Labels: Non-Compliance with Industry Standards, Poor Incident Response Handling
    • Details: Feisty Duck
12. e-Tugra (2023):
    • Event: e-Tugra was distrusted due to security concerns. A researcher found numerous vulnerabilities in e-Tugra’s systems, including default passwords and accessible administrative tools, leading to a loss of trust.
    • Labels: Operational Vulnerabilities, Insecure Practices, Poor Incident Response Handling
    • Details: Sectigo, GitHub, Ian Carroll’s Blog
13. Ecommerce CA (EU) (2024):
    • Event: The Ecommerce CA in the EU faced browser distrust due to various security and compliance issues, leading to its removal from trusted lists.
    • Labels: Non-Compliance with Industry Standards, Operational Vulnerabilities, Poor Incident Response Handling
    • Details: EuroCommerce, Ecommerce Europe
14. Entrust (2024):
    • Event: The Chrome Security Team announced the distrust of several Entrust roots due to a pattern of compliance failures and unmet improvement commitments.
    • Labels: Non-Compliance with Industry Standards, Poor Incident Response Handling
    • Details: Google Security Blog

Conclusion

The frequency and patterns of browser distrust events underscore the critical importance of preventive measures, transparency, and effective incident response.

Implementing robust security practices, conducting regular audits, and maintaining compliance with industry standards can significantly reduce the risk of such incidents. Transparency in operations and public disclosure of security issues foster an environment of accountability and trust.

An ounce of prevention is indeed worth more than a pound of cure. By focusing on proactive measures and cultivating a culture of continuous improvement, Certificate Authorities can better navigate the complexities of WebPKI. Effective crisis communication and incident response plans are essential for managing the fallout from security breaches and maintaining the trust of users and the broader web community.

By learning from past incidents and addressing their root causes, we can work towards a more secure and resilient internet, where trust in the WebPKI system is consistently upheld. The collective effort of CAs, browser vendors, and security researchers will play a pivotal role in achieving this goal, ensuring the integrity and reliability of our online ecosystem.

When it comes to workload and service credential management, a common misconception is that you can simply reuse your existing Certificate Authority (CA) and Certificate Lifecycle Management (CLM) infrastructure to achieve your desired end-state more quickly. Given that nearly every organization has client and server TLS certificates for devices and web servers and many have made significant investments in managing and issuing these certificates, this notion seems logical. However, the design constraints of these use cases differ significantly. The transition from static to dynamic environments, along with the associated credential governance problems, makes it clear that a purpose-built approach is necessary for managing workload and service credentials.

The Static Nature of Traditional CA and CLM Infrastructure

Traditional CA and CLM infrastructure primarily deals with TLS server certificates, where the identities involved are usually domain names or IP addresses. These identifiers are largely static, pre-defined, and managed out-of-band. As a result, the lifecycle of these certificates, which includes issuance, renewal, and revocation, follows a relatively predictable pattern. These certificates are usually issued for validity periods ranging from 90 days to a year, and the processes and infrastructure are designed to handle these constraints. However, use cases surrounding workload and service credentials have a totally different set of constraints, given the highly dynamic environment and various regulatory frameworks they must adhere to.

The Dynamic Nature of Workloads and Services

Workloads and services operate in a significantly different environment. These identities often come and go as services scale up or down or undergo updates. The sheer scale at which workload and service credentials are issued and managed can be hundreds of times greater than that of traditional client and server TLS certificate use cases.

Unlike the static domain names or IP addresses used in these traditional TLS certificates, the identifiers for workloads and services are dynamically assigned as workloads spin up and down or are updated. Workload and service credentials often have a much shorter lifespan compared to server certificates. They might need to be reissued every few minutes or hours, depending on the nature of the workload and the policies of the environment. This changes the expectations of the availability and scalability of the issuing infrastructure, leading to a need for credentials to be issued as close to the workload as possible to ensure issuance doesn’t become a source of downtime.

These workloads and services are also often deployed in clusters across various geographic locations to ensure fault tolerance and scalability. Unlike server certificates that can rely on a centralized CA, workload and service credentials often need a more distributed approach to minimize latency and meet performance requirements.

Another critical difference lies in the scope of trust. For TLS client and server certificates, the security domain is essentially defined by a root certificate or the corresponding root store. However, in the context of workloads and services, the goal is to achieve least privilege. This often necessitates a much more complicated PKI to deliver on this least-privileged design.

Additionally, federation is often needed in these use cases, and it is usually not possible to standardize on just X.509. For example, you might need to interoperate with a service that works based on OAuth. Even in such cases, you want to manage all of this within one common framework to have unified control and visibility regardless of the technology used for the deployment.

Purpose-Built Solutions for Workload and Service Credential Management

Given the unique challenges of managing workload and service credentials in dynamic, cloud-native environments, existing CA and CLM investments often fall short. Purpose-built solutions, such as those based on SPIFFE (Secure Production Identity Framework for Everyone), tend to offer a more effective approach by providing dynamic, attested identities tailored for these environments.

Dynamic Identifier Assignment

Unlike static identifiers managed by traditional CLM solutions, SPIFFE dynamically assigns identifiers as workloads spin up and down, aligning with the nature of modern cloud environments.

Decentralized Issuance

By issuing credentials as close to the workload as possible, SPIFFE-based solutions reduce latency and align issuance with the availability goals of these deployments, ensuring that credentials are issued and managed efficiently without becoming a source of downtime.

Granular Policy Enforcement

SPIFFE-based solutions enable enforcing fine-grained policy through its namespacing and security domain concepts. This enables organizations to define and enforce policies at a more granular level, ensuring that workloads only access the necessary resources.

Identity Governance and Federation

SPIFFE-based solutions tend to support extending existing identity governance programs to workload and service credentials while also facilitating seamless and secure access to external services across different trust domains.

Multifactor Authentication

These SPIFFE-based solutions also provide support for attestation, which can be thought of as multi-factor authentication for workloads. This attestation verifies the workload and services’ running state and environment, tying the credentials to those environments and helping minimize the risks of credential theft.

Integration with Other Systems and Protocols

These environments can seldom rely exclusively on just X.509, which is why SPIFFE supports both X.509 and JWT formats of credentials. This flexibility allows seamless integration with various systems and protocols within cloud deployments.

Conclusion

While it might be tempting to reuse existing CA and CLM infrastructure for workload and service credential management, this approach fails to address the unique challenges posed by dynamic, cloud-native environments. The ephemeral nature of workload identities, the high frequency of credential issuance, and the need for granular trust domains necessitate purpose-built solutions like those based on SPIFFE.

These purpose-built systems are designed to handle the dynamic nature of modern environments, providing strong, attested identities and ensuring that credential management aligns with the evolving needs of cloud-native workloads. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for developing an effective identity management strategy for modern workloads and services without having to go through a reset event down the line.

To learn more about effective machine identity management, check out SPIRL and see how they are leading the way.

If we examine the contents of most secret management solutions, like HashiCorp Vault, we will find that we primarily store the logical equivalent of user IDs and passwords for services, workloads, and machines. Much like the old-school practice of writing passwords on post-it notes and sharing them, these secrets are then distributed to whatever entity needs access to the protected resource. As a result, it is no surprise that we encounter the same problems as password management: weak secrets, shared secrets, and stolen secrets. This is why we see machine credentials and keys being stolen in events like STORM 0558.

Secret Management: A Machine-Scale Password Management

Secret management can be seen as password management at a machine scale. These systems centralize secrets  (e.g., API keys, tokens, and passwords) to manage their sprawl and then make it easy to pass these shared secrets around various services and applications. However, just as simple passwords alone are seen as insufficient for user authentication—necessitating the adoption of multi-factor authentication (MFA) and migration to non-password authenticators like Passkeys—the same shortcomings apply to this legacy approach to managing these credentials.

The reality is that these secret managers were designed to address the symptoms rather than the root cause of secret sprawl. By storing and distributing these static secrets without treating them as credentials to be managed, you centralize the chaos but do not solve the fundamental problem: the need for robust, scalable machine identity management. Machines, services, and workloads, much like users credentials, require purpose-built approaches. Just as we have applied multi-factor authentication, identity governance and administration (IGA) and solutions like OKTA to user management, we need analogous systems for machines.

Credential Management for Machines

At machine and workload scale, credential management solutions need to be architected differently to handle the dynamic nature of modern cloud environments. This is where purpose-built solutions come into play. These solutions must address the unique challenges of credential management in dynamic, cloud-native environments. Unlike secret management, which often relies on static secrets, credential management provides dynamic, attested identities for workloads. For example, SPIFFE (Secure Production Identity Framework for Everyone) offers a strategy for managing dynamic identities, providing the foundation for standards-based, scalable, and robust workload identity management.

Higher-Level Concepts in Workload Credential Management:

1. Provisioning and Deprovisioning:
   • Efficiently creating, updating, and removing machine identities as services start, stop, and scale.
2. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC):
   • Assigning access rights based on predefined roles, ensuring that machines and services have appropriate permissions.
3. Periodic Reviews:
   • Conducting regular reviews of machine access rights to ensure compliance and appropriateness.
4. Policy Enforcement:
   • Defining and enforcing access control policies, ensuring that machines and services adhere to security guidelines.
5. Audit and Reporting:
   • Generating comprehensive reports to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements and internal policies.
6. Risk Analysis:
   • Identifying and mitigating risks associated with machine identities and their entitlements.
7. Behavioral Analysis:
   • Monitoring machine behavior to detect anomalies and potential security threats.

Just as legacy approaches to secret management fail for workloads, machines, and services, these legacy IGA approaches will not work either. We need built-for-purpose solutions to adapt and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Those solutions will look like credential management systems that enable these functions as a byproduct of how they work, rather than bolting them onto an existing secret management or IGA process. 

This is why I have been an advisor to SPIRL since its founding. The founders, Evan and Eli, are why I knew I had to be involved. As the authors of the standard and having had real production-at-scale experience with SPIFFE, I knew they had what it took, which is why I have been working with them in a more formal capacity as of this last month. They are building the infrastructure that makes, as I like to say, the right thing the easy thing, ensuring their customers don’t repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to workload and service identity.

Conclusion

Secret management tools were a necessary step in addressing the sprawl of machine secrets, and they will continue to be needed. However, as the complexity and scale of cloud environments grow, so does the need for more sophisticated solutions for workload and service credentials. Credential management systems provide the dynamic, robust framework required for modern machine identity management.

By adopting credential management as the primary approach and using secret management as the exception, organizations can achieve greater security, scalability, and operational efficiency in their cloud-native architectures. To learn more about effective machine identity management, check out SPIRL and see how they are leading the way.