logoalt Hacker News

EMudhra Intermediate CA Compromise

265 points • by galadran • today at 1:58 PM • 121 comments • view on HN

Comments

eqvinox • today at 4:56 PM

Since I haven't seen this mentioned enough yet:

The private key for all 8 "compromised" CAs is a single byte: https://mastodon.catgirl.cloud/@49016/117474217042191790

One of the private keys is literally "4".

I'm putting "compromised" in quotes here, because I can't call it that without cringing and cursing.

[cf. also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50169109]

➕ show 6 replies
galadran • today at 2:46 PM

The impact of this incident is very unevenly spread.

Over 10 years ago, Mozilla shipped OneCRL [1]. We remediated this incident in a couple of hours for Firefox users who were protected automatically without the need for updates. Chrome, Apple and Microsoft have similar tooling. Since then, we've built more advanced tooling to handle revocation at scale for leaf certs (CRLite [2]).

However, for the rest of the ecosystem, there has been little to no investment in revocation and for those clients, this is a massive problem. Hopefully, we'll see folks invest now. Efforts like upki [3] look promising.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/03/03/revoking-interm...

[2] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2025/08/crlite-fast-private-and-co...

[3] https://github.com/rustls/upki

➕ show 2 replies
hypfer • today at 3:04 PM

From what the internet is telling me, the keys were found on https://repository.emsign.com/certs/<redacted>.crt

Which, if true, is definitely a lot of fun.

Hope you people are ready for lots and lots of suddenly hackable IoT.

lukeschlather • today at 5:31 PM

This seems like an AI-generated summary and it leaves some obvious questions unanswered.

This thread (linked by the page) seems like a better source: https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-polic...

Ian Carroll notes:

> I think it's worth noting that this compromise is much worse than the private keys simply being stolen by a researcher. They are inherently weak single-byte keys that anyone can factor, and the issue cannot be contained.

dochtman • today at 2:40 PM

Running Go? Upgrade to 1.27.3 or 1.26.10.

Rust with rustls? Upgrade to rustls-webpki 0.103.16 and/or webpki-roots/webpki-root-certs 1.0.10.

Python? Upgrade certifi to 2026.10.19.

Homebrew ca-certificates? 2026-09-25_1.

Electron? 44.9.1, 43.8.1, or 42.11.16.

➕ show 1 reply
wood_spirit • today at 5:23 PM

Also on front HN page is https://kaba.cx/posts/20261020_Tor/ on how 300 tor exit nodes were compromised.

In that case it was ssh sessions being intercepted.

But my question is if a tor exit node or a vpn provider or your internet provider has a private key to any CA then can they mitm any normal web traffic even though it will show up as https without warnings in your browser?

➕ show 1 reply
ghuntley • today at 4:44 PM

Just wrote up a quickie about how Nix + LLMs make patching everything super simple via overlays. Simplest security response I've ever done in my life. http://ghuntley.com/patch

CiPHPerCoder • today at 4:30 PM

If you're responsible for PHP client software, and waiting on composer/ca-bundle to release a new update, be aware that https://github.com/paragonie/certainty has been updated with the 2026-10-20 bundle already.

q3k • today at 4:42 PM

https://chaos.social/@fluepke/117474156947559280

D=4. That's the entire private key for one of the certs.

TedDoesntTalk • today at 3:28 PM

are there any consequences to eMudhra?

➕ show 4 replies
rockdoe • today at 5:41 PM

So uh, for various IOT junk like Smart TVs, does that mean the ones that don't get security updates (pretty much all of them) are permanently pwned?

aghuang • today at 4:06 PM

This probably has an unimaginable blast radius of existing software out there.

account42 • today at 2:39 PM

> What are the consequences?

> An attacker with the private key of any of the compromised intermediate CAs could impersonate any website or service.

And how many more times do we need to read this before we replace Web PKI with a system that isn't as completely insane?

We already have a functioning system for delegating domain ownership in a hierarchical fashion where compromises are limited to only the subtree under the compromised entity. Let's start using it for domain validation sooner rather than later.

➕ show 2 replies
albert_e • today at 3:13 PM

trying to understand where this service is mainly used. judging by a quick google search ...

is this related to Government of India related websites and their services/websites like tax filing etc? is the impact expected to be concentrated around indian citizens availing these services?

➕ show 2 replies
jeffrallen • today at 4:52 PM

Thanks Wayne.

quotemstr • today at 2:40 PM

Web PKI is cursed. Why should anyone have to ship a new version of Go, Electron, webpki-roots, etc. (possibly over a now-compromised TLS connection!) just to revoke a certificate? Why are so many packages independently shipping high-sensitivity trust-bootstrap credentials? And why can any CA still vouch for any domain instead of each being limited to a specific ccTLD or other non-total shard of subject names?

Also, it's quietly, in the email space, that we're seeing real innovation while browser vendors just say "no" to everything.

➕ show 1 reply