Mis-Issued Certificates for 1.1.1.1 DNS Service Pose a Threat to the Internet
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
arstechnica.comTechstory
calmnegative
Debate
40/100
DNS SecurityTls CertificatesInternet Infrastructure
Key topics
DNS Security
Tls Certificates
Internet Infrastructure
Mis-issued TLS certificates for Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 DNS service pose a threat to internet security, highlighting the need for better DNS security measures like DNSSEC.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
28m
Peak period
5
0-2h
Avg / period
3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 3, 2025 at 4:42 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 3, 2025 at 5:09 PM EDT
28m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
5 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 4, 2025 at 2:08 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45120193Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:37:21 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Yes, DNSSEC as specified by the RFC is flawed and many TLDs/countries don't bother with it, let's skip the usual discussions, but something like it would make tampering obvious.
To prevent regular TLS MitM attacks, we have HTTPS pinning (though HKPK died in browsers), but most DNS, even with layered encryption on top of it, has "trust me bro" as an authenticity model.
Also, DNSSEC tampering is no more obvious than WebPKI tampering (how would anyone know if Verisign served a rogue DS record for someone's .com domain to certain resolvers?). Just as with WebPKI, you need a transparency system if you want to make tampering discoverable. (Such a transparency system has been proposed for DNSSEC but went nowhere.)
Ah well.
Note that the CA which did this is trusted only by Microsoft. The other major root programs (Mozilla, Chrome, Apple) manage their root programs much better and don't trust CAs like this.
Also, this CA is part of the EU's Trust List, so had the EU's original eIDAS/QWAC proposal gone through, Mozilla, Chrome, and Apple would have been required by EU law to trust this CA also.