How many browsers extensions do you have running? Most enterprise users have at least one and seven out of ten have seen an extension expand its permissions over the last 12 months—with AI extensions being the worst offenders…by sixfold.
The post Over Permissive and Proliferating, AI-Driven Browser Extensions Create Security Blindspots appeared first on Security Boulevard.
The world is in a race to build its first quantum computer capable of solving practical problems not feasible on even the largest conventional supercomputers. While the quantum computing paradigm promises many benefits, it also threatens the security of the Internet by breaking much of the cryptography we have come to rely on.
To mitigate this threat, Cloudflare is helping to migrate the Internet to Post-Quantum (PQ) cryptography. Today, about 50% of traffic to Cloudflare's edge network is protected against the most urgent threat: an attacker who can intercept and store encrypted traffic today and then decrypt it in the future with the help of a quantum computer. This is referred to as the harvest now, decrypt later threat.
However, this is just one of the threats we need to address. A quantum computer can also be used to crack a server's TLS certificate, allowing an attacker to impersonate the server to unsuspecting clients. The good news is that we already have PQ algorithms we can use for quantum-safe authentication. The bad news is that adoption of these algorithms in TLS will require significant changes to one of the most complex and security-critical systems on the Internet: the Web Public-Key Infrastructure (WebPKI).
The central problem is the sheer size of these new algorithms: signatures for ML-DSA-44, one of the most performant PQ algorithms standardized by NIST, are 2,420 bytes long, compared to just 64 bytes for ECDSA-P256, the most popular non-PQ signature in use today; and its public keys are 1,312 bytes long, compared to just 64 bytes for ECDSA. That's a roughly 20-fold increase in size. Worse yet, the average TLS handshake includes a number of public keys and signatures, adding up to 10s of kilobytes of overhead per handshake. This is enough to have a noticeable impact on the performance of TLS.
That makes drop-in PQ certificates a tough sell to enable today: they don’t bring any security benefit before Q-day — the day a cryptographically relevant quantum computer arrives — but they do degrade performance. We could sit and wait until Q-day is a year away, but that’s playing with fire. Migrations always take longer than expected, and by waiting we risk the security and privacy of the Internet, which is dear to us.
It's clear that we must find a way to make post-quantum certificates cheap enough to deploy today by default for everyone — not just those that can afford it. In this post, we'll introduce you to the plan we’ve brought together with industry partners to the IETF to redesign the WebPKI in order to allow a smooth transition to PQ authentication with no performance impact (and perhaps a performance improvement!). We'll provide an overview of one concrete proposal, called Merkle Tree Certificates (MTCs), whose goal is to whittle down the number of public keys and signatures in the TLS handshake to the bare minimum required.
But talk is cheap. We know from experience that, as with any change to the Internet, it's crucial to test early and often. Today we're announcing our intent to deploy MTCs on an experimental basis in collaboration with Chrome Security. In this post, we'll describe the scope of this experiment, what we hope to learn from it, and how we'll make sure it's done safely.
Why does the TLS handshake have so many public keys and signatures?
Let's start with Cryptography 101. When your browser connects to a website, it asks the server to authenticate itself to make sure it's talking to the real server and not an impersonator. This is usually achieved with a cryptographic primitive known as a digital signature scheme (e.g., ECDSA or ML-DSA). In TLS, the server signs the messages exchanged between the client and server using its secret key, and the client verifies the signature using the server's public key. In this way, the server confirms to the client that they've had the same conversation, since only the server could have produced a valid signature.
If the client already knows the server's public key, then only 1 signature is required to authenticate the server. In practice, however, this is not really an option. The web today is made up of around a billion TLS servers, so it would be unrealistic to provision every client with the public key of every server. What's more, the set of public keys will change over time as new servers come online and existing ones rotate their keys, so we would need some way of pushing these changes to clients.
This scaling problem is at the heart of the design of all PKIs.
Instead of expecting the client to know the server's public key in advance, the server might just send its public key during the TLS handshake. But how does the client know that the public key actually belongs to the server? This is the job of a certificate.
A certificate binds a public key to the identity of the server — usually its DNS name, e.g., cloudflareresearch.com. The certificate is signed by a Certification Authority (CA) whose public key is known to the client. In addition to verifying the server's handshake signature, the client verifies the signature of this certificate. This establishes a chain of trust: by accepting the certificate, the client is trusting that the CA verified that the public key actually belongs to the server with that identity.
Clients are typically configured to trust many CAs and must be provisioned with a public key for each. Things are much easier however, since there are only 100s of CAs instead of billions. In addition, new certificates can be created without having to update clients.
These efficiencies come at a relatively low cost: for those counting at home, that's +1 signature and +1 public key, for a total of 2 signatures and 1 public key per TLS handshake.
That's not the end of the story, however. As the WebPKI has evolved, so have these chains of trust grown a bit longer. These days it's common for a chain to consist of two or more certificates rather than just one. This is because CAs sometimes need to rotate their keys, just as servers do. But before they can start using the new key, they must distribute the corresponding public key to clients. This takes time, since it requires billions of clients to update their trust stores. To bridge the gap, the CA will sometimes use the old key to issue a certificate for the new one and append this certificate to the end of the chain.
That's +1 signature and +1 public key, which brings us to 3 signatures and 2 public keys. And we still have a little ways to go.
The main job of a CA is to verify that a server has control over the domain for which it’s requesting a certificate. This process has evolved over the years from a high-touch, CA-specific process to a standardized, mostly automated process used for issuing most certificates on the web. (Not all CAs fully support automation, however.) This evolution is marked by a number of security incidents in which a certificate was mis-issued to a party other than the server, allowing that party to impersonate the server to any client that trusts the CA.
Automation helps, but attacks are still possible, and mistakes are almost inevitable. Earlier this year, several certificates for Cloudflare's encrypted 1.1.1.1 resolver were issued without our involvement or authorization. This apparently occurred by accident, but it nonetheless put users of 1.1.1.1 at risk. (The mis-issued certificates have since been revoked.)
Ensuring mis-issuance is detectable is the job of the Certificate Transparency (CT) ecosystem. The basic idea is that each certificate issued by a CA gets added to a public log. Servers can audit these logs for certificates issued in their name. If ever a certificate is issued that they didn't request itself, the server operator can prove the issuance happened, and the PKI ecosystem can take action to prevent the certificate from being trusted by clients.
Major browsers, including Firefox and Chrome and its derivatives, require certificates to be logged before they can be trusted. For example, Chrome, Safari, and Firefox will only accept the server's certificate if it appears in at least two logs the browser is configured to trust. This policy is easy to state, but tricky to implement in practice:
Operating a CT log has historically been fairly expensive. Logs ingest billions of certificates over their lifetimes: when an incident happens, or even just under high load, it can take some time for a log to make a new entry available for auditors.
Clients can't really audit logs themselves, since this would expose their browsing history (i.e., the servers they wanted to connect to) to the log operators.
The solution to both problems is to include a signature from the CT log along with the certificate. The signature is produced immediately in response to a request to log a certificate, and attests to the log's intent to include the certificate in the log within 24 hours.
Per browser policy, certificate transparency adds +2 signatures to the TLS handshake, one for each log. This brings us to a total of 5 signatures and 2 public keys in a typical handshake on the public web.
The WebPKI is a living, breathing, and highly distributed system. We've had to patch it a number of times over the years to keep it going, but on balance it has served our needs quite well — until now.
Previously, whenever we needed to update something in the WebPKI, we would tack on another signature. This strategy has worked because conventional cryptography is so cheap. But 5 signatures and 2 public keys on average for each TLS handshake is simply too much to cope with for the larger PQ signatures that are coming.
The good news is that by moving what we already have around in clever ways, we can drastically reduce the number of signatures we need.
Merkle Tree Certificates (MTCs) is a proposal for the next generation of the WebPKI that we are implementing and plan to deploy on an experimental basis. Its key features are as follows:
All the information a client needs to validate a Merkle Tree Certificate can be disseminated out-of-band. If the client is sufficiently up-to-date, then the TLS handshake needs just 1 signature, 1 public key, and 1 Merkle tree inclusion proof. This is quite small, even if we use post-quantum algorithms.
The MTC specification makes certificate transparency a first class feature of the PKI by having each CA run its own log of exactly the certificates they issue.
Let's poke our head under the hood a little. Below we have an MTC generated by one of our internal tests. This would be transmitted from the server to the client in the TLS handshake:
Entrar-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----Looks like your average PEM encoded certificate. Let's decode it and look at the parameters:
$ openssl x509 -in merkle-tree-cert.pem -noout -text
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number: 531 (0x213)
Signature Algorithm: 1.3.6.1.4.1.44363.47.0
Issuer: 1.3.6.1.4.1.44363.47.1=44363.48.3
Validity
Not Before: Oct 21 15:33:26 2025 GMT
Not After : Oct 28 15:33:26 2025 GMT
Subject: CN=cloudflareresearch.com
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey
Public-Key: (256 bit)
pub:
04:70:ed:e1:96:87:b4:22:ef:fb:dc:a9:cd:9c:5c:
ef:1e:9e:ab:1b:6d:d7:11:74:7b:76:c8:3c:a1:5f:
94:37:45:99:d8:80:e3:5c:24:4f:28:46:b5:bf:84:
60:d8:fc:eb:82:5a:c4:4e:33:90:c7:b3:36:51:0c:
92:6d:bf:88:27
ASN1 OID: prime256v1
NIST CURVE: P-256
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Key Usage: critical
Digital Signature
X509v3 Extended Key Usage:
TLS Web Server Authentication
X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
DNS:cloudflareresearch.com, DNS:static-ct.cloudflareresearch.com
Signature Algorithm: 1.3.6.1.4.1.44363.47.0
Signature Value:
00:00:00:00:00:00:02:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:02:58:00:e0:
44:be:03:a5:bd:6a:b7:f2:9e:39:77:4c:16:4c:f8:06:e5:e1:
55:c0:93:21:c6:79:83:3c:dd:5b:e6:57:89:c0:75:b3:4c:ec:
75:8a:0b:53:a0:ca:1c:07:0c:1a:92:dd:c7:7c:a2:23:5d:83:
0e:e4:23:43:38:af:43:20:a8:66:44:34:95:87:ea:2b:f0:0f:
16:52:bb:ea:67:67:1e:89:36:4f:90:d4:05:55:89:46:f1:b7:
b6:68:84:d3:57:31:ae:2b:c3:79:31:86:85:9d:24:ed:cf:25:
a4:5c:fd:8f:f6:76:14:55:dd:67:2e:df:d6:8c:25:0d:52:48:
c8:e3:fe:f9:7c:e6:a5:30:52:a5:b5:c7:3a:89:a5:c1:f6:4b:
5b:95:ef:70:b8:91:fc:61:0f:6d:16:de:39:e9:a0:59:49:2b:
34:71:7c:2a:16:da:c7:af:de:f7:01:94:10:c4:62:d1:f5:00:
87:bd:e8:a2:f4:df:3b:35:79:27:0e:fc:cc:43:e7:60:5a:df:
df:06:e8:d3:7e:eb:b3:bf:7b:25:43:0f:34:9a:26:c0:d3:6d:
5d:0c:28:bc:87:58:58:15:00:00While some of the parameters probably look familiar, others will look unusual. On the familiar side, the subject and public key are exactly what we might expect: the DNS name is cloudflareresearch.com and the public key is for a familiar signature algorithm, ECDSA-P256. This algorithm is not PQ, of course — in the future we would put ML-DSA-44 there instead.
On the unusual side, OpenSSL appears to not recognize the signature algorithm of the issuer and just prints the raw OID and bytes of the signature. There's a good reason for this: the MTC does not have a signature in it at all! So what exactly are we looking at?
The trick to leave out signatures is that a Merkle Tree Certification Authority (MTCA) produces its signatureless certificates in batches rather than individually. In place of a signature, the certificate has an inclusion proof of the certificate in a batch of certificates signed by the MTCA.
To understand how inclusion proofs work, let's think about a slightly simplified version of the MTC specification. To issue a batch, the MTCA arranges the unsigned certificates into a data structure called a Merkle tree that looks like this:
Each leaf of the tree corresponds to a certificate, and each inner node is equal to the hash of its children. To sign the batch, the MTCA uses its secret key to sign the head of the tree. The structure of the tree guarantees that each certificate in the batch was signed by the MTCA: if we tried to tweak the bits of any one of the certificates, the treehead would end up having a different value, which would cause the signature to fail.
An inclusion proof for a certificate consists of the hash of each sibling node along the path from the certificate to the treehead:
Given a validated treehead, this sequence of hashes is sufficient to prove inclusion of the certificate in the tree. This means that, in order to validate an MTC, the client also needs to obtain the signed treehead from the MTCA.
This is the key to MTC's efficiency:
Signed treeheads can be disseminated to clients out-of-band and validated offline. Each validated treehead can then be used to validate any certificate in the corresponding batch, eliminating the need to obtain a signature for each server certificate.
During the TLS handshake, the client tells the server which treeheads it has. If the server has a signatureless certificate covered by one of those treeheads, then it can use that certificate to authenticate itself. That's 1 signature,1 public key and 1 inclusion proof per handshake, both for the server being authenticated.
Now, that's the simplified version. MTC proper has some more bells and whistles. To start, it doesn’t create a separate Merkle tree for each batch, but it grows a single large tree, which is used for better transparency. As this tree grows, periodically (sub)tree heads are selected to be shipped to browsers, which we call landmarks. In the common case browsers will be able to fetch the most recent landmarks, and servers can wait for batch issuance, but we need a fallback: MTC also supports certificates that can be issued immediately and don’t require landmarks to be validated, but these are not as small. A server would provision both types of Merkle tree certificates, so that the common case is fast, and the exceptional case is slow, but at least it’ll work.
Ever since early designs for MTCs emerged, we’ve been eager to experiment with the idea. In line with the IETF principle of “running code”, it often takes implementing a protocol to work out kinks in the design. At the same time, we cannot risk the security of users. In this section, we describe our approach to experimenting with aspects of the Merkle Tree Certificates design without changing any trust relationships.
Let’s start with what we hope to learn. We have lots of questions whose answers can help to either validate the approach, or uncover pitfalls that require reshaping the protocol — in fact, an implementation of an early MTC draft by Maximilian Pohl and Mia Celeste did exactly this. We’d like to know:
What breaks? Protocol ossification (the tendency of implementation bugs to make it harder to change a protocol) is an ever-present issue with deploying protocol changes. For TLS in particular, despite having built-in flexibility, time after time we’ve found that if that flexibility is not regularly used, there will be buggy implementations and middleboxes that break when they see things they don’t recognize. TLS 1.3 deployment took years longer than we hoped for this very reason. And more recently, the rollout of PQ key exchange in TLS caused the Client Hello to be split over multiple TCP packets, something that many middleboxes weren't ready for.
What is the performance impact? In fact, we expect MTCs to reduce the size of the handshake, even compared to today's non-PQ certificates. They will also reduce CPU cost: ML-DSA signature verification is about as fast as ECDSA, and there will be far fewer signatures to verify. We therefore expect to see a reduction in latency. We would like to see if there is a measurable performance improvement.
What fraction of clients will stay up to date? Getting the performance benefit of MTCs requires the clients and servers to be roughly in sync with one another. We expect MTCs to have fairly short lifetimes, a week or so. This means that if the client's latest landmark is older than a week, the server would have to fallback to a larger certificate. Knowing how often this fallback happens will help us tune the parameters of the protocol to make fallbacks less likely.
In order to answer these questions, we are implementing MTC support in our TLS stack and in our certificate issuance infrastructure. For their part, Chrome is implementing MTC support in their own TLS stack and will stand up infrastructure to disseminate landmarks to their users.
As we've done in past experiments, we plan to enable MTCs for a subset of our free customers with enough traffic that we will be able to get useful measurements. Chrome will control the experimental rollout: they can ramp up slowly, measuring as they go and rolling back if and when bugs are found.
Which leaves us with one last question: who will run the Merkle Tree CA?
Standing up a proper CA is no small task: it takes years to be trusted by major browsers. That’s why Cloudflare isn’t going to become a “real” CA for this experiment, and Chrome isn’t going to trust us directly.
Instead, to make progress on a reasonable timeframe, without sacrificing due diligence, we plan to "mock" the role of the MTCA. We will run an MTCA (on Workers based on our StaticCT logs), but for each MTC we issue, we also publish an existing certificate from a trusted CA that agrees with it. We call this the bootstrap certificate. When Chrome’s infrastructure pulls updates from our MTCA log, they will also pull these bootstrap certificates, and check whether they agree. Only if they do, they’ll proceed to push the corresponding landmarks to Chrome clients. In other words, Cloudflare is effectively just “re-encoding” an existing certificate (with domain validation performed by a trusted CA) as an MTC, and Chrome is using certificate transparency to keep us honest.
With almost 50% of our traffic already protected by post-quantum encryption, we’re halfway to a fully post-quantum secure Internet. The second part of our journey, post-quantum certificates, is the hardest yet though. A simple drop-in upgrade has a noticeable performance impact and no security benefit before Q-day. This means it’s a hard sell to enable today by default. But here we are playing with fire: migrations always take longer than expected. If we want to keep an ubiquitously private and secure Internet, we need a post-quantum solution that’s performant enough to be enabled by default today.
Merkle Tree Certificates (MTCs) solves this problem by reducing the number of signatures and public keys to the bare minimum while maintaining the WebPKI's essential properties. We plan to roll out MTCs to a fraction of free accounts by early next year. This does not affect any visitors that are not part of the Chrome experiment. For those that are, thanks to the bootstrap certificates, there is no impact on security.
We’re excited to keep the Internet fast and secure, and will report back soon on the results of this experiment: watch this space! MTC is evolving as we speak, if you want to get involved, please join the IETF PLANTS mailing list.
Over the past few days Cloudflare has been notified through our vulnerability disclosure program and the certificate transparency mailing list that unauthorized certificates were issued by Fina CA for 1.1.1.1, one of the IP addresses used by our public DNS resolver service. From February 2024 to August 2025, Fina CA issued twelve certificates for 1.1.1.1 without our permission. We did not observe unauthorized issuance for any properties managed by Cloudflare other than 1.1.1.1.
We have no evidence that bad actors took advantage of this error. To impersonate Cloudflare's public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1, an attacker would not only require an unauthorized certificate and its corresponding private key, but attacked users would also need to trust the Fina CA. Furthermore, traffic between the client and 1.1.1.1 would have to be intercepted.
While this unauthorized issuance is an unacceptable lapse in security by Fina CA, we should have caught and responded to it earlier. After speaking with Fina CA, it appears that they issued these certificates for the purposes of internal testing. However, no CA should be issuing certificates for domains and IP addresses without checking control. At present all certificates have been revoked. We are awaiting a full post-mortem from Fina.
While we regret this situation, we believe it is a useful opportunity to walk through how trust works on the Internet between networks like ourselves, destinations like 1.1.1.1, CAs like Fina, and devices like the one you are using to read this. To learn more about the mechanics, please keep reading.
Cloudflare operates a public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 service that millions of devices use to resolve domain names from a human-readable format such as example.com to an IP address like 192.0.2.42 or 2001:db8::2a.
The 1.1.1.1 service is accessible using various methods, across multiple domain names, such as cloudflare-dns.com and one.one.one.one, and also using various IP addresses, such as 1.1.1.1, 1.0.0.1, 2606:4700:4700::1111, and 2606:4700:4700::1001. 1.1.1.1 for Families also provides public DNS resolver services and is hosted on different IP addresses — 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.3, 1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.3, 2606:4700:4700::1112, 2606:4700:4700::1113, 2606:4700:4700::1002, 2606:4700:4700::1003.
As originally specified in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, the DNS protocol includes no privacy or authenticity protections. DNS queries and responses are exchanged between client and server in plain text over UDP or TCP. These represent around 60% of queries received by the Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 service. The lack of privacy or authenticity protection means that any intermediary can potentially read the DNS query and response and modify them without the client or the server being aware.
To address these shortcomings, we have helped develop and deploy multiple solutions at the IETF. The two of interest to this post are DNS over TLS (DoT, RFC 7878) and DNS over HTTPS (DoH, RFC 8484). In both cases the DNS protocol itself is mainly unchanged, and the desirable security properties are implemented in a lower layer, replacing the simple use of plain-text in UDP and TCP in the original specification. Both DoH and DoT use TLS to establish an authenticated, private, and encrypted channel over which DNS messages can be exchanged. To learn more you can read DNS Encryption Explained.
During the TLS handshake, the server proves its identity to the client by presenting a certificate. The client validates this certificate by verifying that it is signed by a Certification Authority that it already trusts. Only then does it establish a connection with the server. Once connected, TLS provides encryption and integrity for the DNS messages exchanged between client and server. This protects DoH and DoT against eavesdropping and tampering between the client and server.
The TLS certificates used in DoT and DoH are the same kinds of certificates HTTPS websites serve. Most website certificates are issued for domain names like example.com. When a client connects to that website, they resolve the name example.com to an IP like 192.0.2.42, then connect to the domain on that IP address. The server responds with a TLS certificate containing example.com, which the device validates.
However, DNS server certificates tend to be used slightly differently. Certificates used for DoT and DoH have to contain the service IP addresses, not just domain names. This is due to clients being unable to resolve a domain name in order to contact their resolver, like cloudflare-dns.com. Instead, devices are first set up by connecting to their resolver via a known IP address, such as 1.1.1.1 in the case of Cloudflare public DNS resolver. When this connection uses DoT or DoH, the resolver responds with a TLS certificate issued for that IP address, which the client validates. If the certificate is valid, the client believes that it is talking to the owner of 1.1.1.1 and starts sending DNS queries.
You can see that the IP addresses are included in the certificate Cloudflare’s public resolver uses for DoT/DoH:
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number:
02:7d:c8:c5:e1:72:94:ae:c9:ed:3f:67:72:8e:8a:08
Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
Issuer: C=US, O=DigiCert Inc, CN=DigiCert Global G2 TLS RSA SHA256 2020 CA1
Validity
Not Before: Jan 2 00:00:00 2025 GMT
Not After : Jan 21 23:59:59 2026 GMT
Subject: C=US, ST=California, L=San Francisco, O=Cloudflare, Inc., CN=cloudflare-dns.com
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
DNS:cloudflare-dns.com, DNS:*.cloudflare-dns.com, DNS:one.one.one.one, IP Address:1.0.0.1, IP Address:1.1.1.1, IP Address:162.159.36.1, IP Address:162.159.46.1, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:1001, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:1111, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:64, IP Address:2606:4700:4700:0:0:0:0:6400The section above describes normal, expected use of Cloudflare public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 service, using certificates managed by Cloudflare. However, Cloudflare has been made aware of other, unauthorized certificates being issued for 1.1.1.1. Since certificate validation is the mechanism by which DoH and DoT clients establish the authenticity of a DNS resolver, this is a concern. Let’s now dive a little further in the security model provided by DoH and DoT.
Consider a client that is preconfigured to use the 1.1.1.1 resolver service using DoT. The client must establish a TLS session with the configured server before it can send any DNS queries. To be trusted, the server needs to present a certificate issued by a CA that the client trusts. The collection of certificates trusted by the client is also called the root store.
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number:
02:7d:c8:c5:e1:72:94:ae:c9:ed:3f:67:72:8e:8a:08
Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
Issuer: C=US, O=DigiCert Inc, CN=DigiCert Global G2 TLS RSA SHA256 2020 CA1A Certification Authority (CA) is an organisation, such as DigiCert in the section above, whose role is to receive requests to sign certificates and verify that the requester has control of the domain. In this incident, Fina CA issued certificates for 1.1.1.1 without Cloudflare's involvement. This means that Fina CA did not properly check whether the requestor had legitimate control over 1.1.1.1. According to Fina CA:
“They were issued for the purpose of internal testing of certificate issuance in the production environment. An error occurred during the issuance of the test certificates when entering the IP addresses and as such they were published on Certificate Transparency log servers.”
Although it’s not clear whether Fina CA sees it as an error, we emphasize that it is not an error to publish test certificates on Certificate Transparency (more about what that is later on). Instead, the error at hand is Fina CA using their production keys to sign a certificate for an IP address without permission of the controller. We have talked about misuse of 1.1.1.1 in documentation, lab, and testing environments at length. Instead of the Cloudflare public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 IP address, Fina should have used an IP address it controls itself.
Unauthorized certificates are unfortunately not uncommon, whether due to negligence — such as IdenTrust in November 2024 — or compromise. Famously in 2011, the Dutch CA DigiNotar was hacked, and its keys were used to issue hundreds of certificates. This hack was a wake-up call and motivated the introduction of Certificate Transparency (CT), later formalised in RFC 6962. The goal of Certificate Transparency is not to directly prevent misissuance, but to be able to detect any misissuance once it has happened, by making sure every certificate issued by a CA is publicly available for inspection.
In certificate transparency several independent parties, including Cloudflare, operate public logs of issued certificates. Many modern browsers do not accept certificates unless they provide proof in the form of signed certificate timestamps (SCTs) that the certificate has been logged in at least two logs. Domain owners can therefore monitor all public CT logs for any certificate containing domains they care about. If they see a certificate for their domains that they did not authorize, they can raise the alarm. CT is also the data source for public services such as crt.sh and Cloudflare Radar’s certificate transparency page.
Not all clients require proof of inclusion in certificate transparency. Browsers do, but most DNS clients don’t. We were fortunate that Fina CA did submit the unauthorized certificates to the CT logs, which allowed them to be discovered.
Our immediate concern was that someone had maliciously used the certificates to impersonate the 1.1.1.1 service. Such an attack would require all the following:
An attacker would require a rogue certificate and its corresponding private key.
Attacked clients would need to trust the Fina CA.
Traffic between the client and 1.1.1.1 would have to be intercepted.
In light of this incident, we have reviewed these requirements one by one:
1. We know that a certificate was issued without Cloudflare's involvement. We must assume that a corresponding private key exists, which is not under Cloudflare's control. This could be used by an attacker. Fina CA wrote to us that the private keys were exclusively in Fina’s controlled environment and were immediately destroyed even before the certificates were revoked. As we have no way to verify this, we have and continue to take steps to detect malicious use as described in point 3.
2. Furthermore, some clients trust Fina CA. It is included by default in Microsoft’s root store and in an EU Trust Service provider. We can exclude some clients, as the CA certificate is not included by default in the root stores of Android, Apple, Mozilla, or Chrome. These users cannot have been affected with these default settings. For these certificates to be used nefariously, the client’s root store must include the Certification Authority (CA) that issued them. Upon discovering the problem, we immediately reached out to Fina CA, Microsoft, and the EU Trust Service provider. Microsoft responded quickly, and started rolling out an update to their disallowed list, which should cause clients that use it to stop trusting the certificate.
3. Finally, we have launched an investigation into possible interception between users and 1.1.1.1. The first way this could happen is when the attacker is on-path of the client request. Such man-in-the-middle attacks are likely to be invisible to us. Clients will get responses from their on-path middlebox and we have no reliable way of telling that is happening. On-path interference has been a persistent problem for 1.1.1.1, which we’ve been working on ever since we announced 1.1.1.1.
A second scenario can occur when a malicious actor is off-path, but is able to hijack 1.1.1.1 routing via BGP. These are scenarios we have discussed in a previous blog post, and increasing adoption of RPKI route origin validation (ROV) makes BGP hijacks with high penetration harder. We looked at the historical BGP announcements involving 1.1.1.1, and have found no evidence that such routing hijacks took place.
Although we cannot be certain, so far we have seen no evidence that these certificates have been used to impersonate Cloudflare public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 traffic. In later sections we discuss the steps we have taken to prevent such impersonation in the future, as well as concrete actions you can take to protect your own systems and users.
All unauthorized certificates for 1.1.1.1 were valid for exactly one year and included other domain names. Most of these domain names are not registered, which indicates that the certificates were issued without proper domain control validation. This violates sections 3.2.2.4 and 3.2.2.5 of the CA/Browser Forum’s Baseline Requirements, and sections 3.2.2.3 and 3.2.2.4 of the Fina CA Certificate Policy.
The full list of domain names we identified on the unauthorized certificates are as follows:
fina.hr
ssltest5
test.fina.hr
test.hr
test1.hr
test11.hr
test12.hr
test5.hr
test6
test6.hr
testssl.fina.hr
testssl.finatest.hr
testssl.hr
testssl1.finatest.hr
testssl2.finatest.hrIt’s also worth noting that the Subject attribute points to a fictional organisation TEST D.D., as can be seen on this unauthorized certificate:
Serial Number:
a5:30:a2:9c:c1:a5:da:40:00:00:00:00:56:71:f2:4c
Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
Issuer: C=HR, O=Financijska agencija, CN=Fina RDC 2015
Validity
Not Before: Nov 2 23:45:15 2024 GMT
Not After : Nov 2 23:45:15 2025 GMT
Subject: C=HR, O=TEST D.D., L=ZAGREB, CN=testssl.finatest.hr, serialNumber=VATHR-32343828408.306
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Subject Alternative Name:
DNS:testssl.finatest.hr, DNS:testssl2.finatest.hr, IP Address:1.1.1.1All timestamps are UTC. All certificates are identified by their date of validity.
The first certificate was issued to be valid starting February 2024, and revoked 33 min later. 11 certificate issuances with common name 1.1.1.1 followed from February 2024 to August 2025. Public reports have been made on Hacker News and on the certificate-transparency mailing list early in September 2025, which Cloudflare responded to.
While responding to the incident, we identified the full list of misissued certificates, their revocation status, and which clients trust them.
The full timeline for the incident is as follows.
Date & Time (UTC) | Event Description |
2024-02-18 11:07:33 | First certificate issuance revoked on 2024-02-18 11:40:00 |
2024-09-25 08:04:03 | Issuance revoked on 2024-11-06 07:36:05 |
2024-10-04 07:55:38 | Issuance revoked on 2024-10-04 07:56:56 |
2024-10-04 08:05:48 | Issuance revoked on 2024-11-06 07:39:55 |
2024-10-15 06:28:48 | Issuance revoked on 2024-11-06 07:35:36 |
2024-11-02 23:45:15 | Issuance revoked on 2024-11-02 23:48:42 |
2025-03-05 09:12:23 | Issuance revoked on 2025-03-05 09:13:22 |
2025-05-24 22:56:21 | Issuance revoked on 2025-09-04 06:13:27 |
2025-06-28 23:05:32 | Issuance revoked on 2025-07-18 07:01:27 |
2025-07-18 07:05:23 | Issuance revoked on 2025-07-18 07:09:45 |
2025-07-18 07:13:14 | Issuance revoked on 2025-09-04 06:30:36 |
2025-08-26 07:49:00 | Last certificate issuance revoked on 2025-09-04 06:33:20 |
2025-09-01 05:23:00 | HackerNews submission about a possible unauthorized issuance |
2025-09-02 04:50:00 | Report shared with us on HackerOne, but was mistriaged |
2025-09-03 02:35:00 | Second report shared with us on HackerOne, but also mistriaged. |
2025-09-03 10:59:00 | Report sent on the public certificate-transparency@googlegroups.com mailing picked up by the team. |
2025-09-03 11:33:00 | First response by Cloudflare on the mailing list about starting the investigation |
2025-09-03 12:08:00 | Incident declared |
2025-09-03 12:16:00 | Notification of an unauthorised issuance sent to Fina CA, Microsoft Root Store, and EU Trust service provider |
2025-09-03 12:23:00 | Cloudflare identifies an initial list of nine rogue certificates |
2025-09-03 12:24:00 | Outreach to Fina CA to inform them about the unauthorized issuance, requesting revocation |
2025-09-03 12:26:00 | Identify the number of requests served on 1.1.1.1 IP address, and associated names/services |
2025-09-03 12:42:00 | As a precautionary measure, began investigation to rule out the possibility of a BGP hijack for 1.1.1.1 |
2025-09-03 18:48:00 | Second notification of the incident to Fina CA |
2025-09-03 21:27:00 | Microsoft Root Store notifies us that they are preventing further use of the identified unauthorized certificates by using their quick-revocation mechanism. |
2025-09-04 06:13:27 | Fina revoked all certificates. |
2025-09-04 12:44:00 | Cloudflare receives a response from Fina indicating “an error occurred during the issuance of the test certificates when entering the IP addresses and as such they were published on Certificate Transparency log servers. [...] Fina will eliminate the possibility of such an error recurring.” |
Cloudflare has invested from the very start in the Certificate Transparency ecosystem. Not only do we operate CT logs ourselves, we also run a CT monitor that we use to alert customers when certificates are mis-issued for their domains.
It is therefore disappointing that we failed to properly monitor certificates for our own domain. We failed three times. The first time because 1.1.1.1 is an IP certificate and our system failed to alert on these. The second time because even if we were to receive certificate issuance alerts, as any of our customers can, we did not implement sufficient filtering. With the sheer number of names and issuances we manage it has not been possible for us to keep up with manual reviews. Finally, because of this noisy monitoring, we did not enable alerting for all of our domains. We are addressing all three shortcomings.
We double-checked all certificates issued for our names, including but not limited to 1.1.1.1, using certificate transparency, and confirmed that as of 3 September, the Fina CA issued certificates are the only unauthorized issuances. We contacted Fina, and the root programs we know that trust them, to ask for revocation and investigation. The certificates have been revoked.
Despite no indication of usage of these certificates so far, we take this incident extremely seriously. We have identified several steps we can take to address the risk of these sorts of problems occurring in the future, and we plan to start working on them immediately:
Alerting: Cloudflare will improve alerts and escalation for issuance of certificates for missing Cloudflare owned domains including 1.1.1.1 certificates.
Transparency: The issuance of these unauthorised 1.1.1.1 certificates were detected because Fina CA used Certificate Transparency. Transparency inclusion is not enforced by most DNS clients, which implies that this detection was a lucky one. We are working on bringing transparency to non-browser clients, in particular DNS clients that rely on TLS.
Bug Bounty: Our procedure for triaging reports made through our vulnerability disclosure program was the cause for a delayed response. We are working to revise our triaging process to ensure such reports get the right visibility.
Monitoring: During this incident, our team relied on crt.sh to provide us a convenient UI to explore CA issued certificates. We’d like to give a shout to the Sectigo team for maintaining this tool. Given Cloudflare is an active CT Monitor, we have started to build a dedicated UI to explore our data in Radar. We are looking to enable exploration of certs with IP addresses as common names to Radar as well.
This incident demonstrates the disproportionate impact that the current root store model can have. It is enough for a single certification authority going rogue for everyone to be at risk.
If you are an IT manager with a fleet of managed devices, you should consider whether you need to take direct action to revoke these unauthorized certificates. We provide the list in the timeline section above. As the certificates have since been revoked, it is possible that no direct intervention should be required; however, system-wide revocation is not instantaneous and automatic and hence we recommend checking.
If you are tasked to review the policy of a root store that includes Fina CA, you should take immediate actions to review their inclusion in your program. The issue that has been identified through the course of this investigation raises concerns, and requires a clear report and follow-up from the CA. In addition, to make it possible to detect future such incidents, you should consider having a requirement for all CAs in your root store to participate in Certificate Transparency. Without CT logs, problems such as the one we describe here are impossible to address before they result in impact to end users.
We are not suggesting that you should stop using DoH or DoT. DNS over UDP and TCP are unencrypted, which puts every single query and response at risk of tampering and unauthorised surveillance. However, we believe that DoH and DoT client security could be improved if clients required that server certificates be included in a certificate transparency log.
This event is the first time we have observed a rogue issuance of a certificate used by our public DNS resolver 1.1.1.1 service. While we have no evidence this was malicious, we know that there might be future attempts that are.
We plan to accelerate how quickly we discover and alert on these types of issues ourselves. We know that we can catch these earlier, and we plan to do so.
The identification of these kinds of issues rely on an ecosystem of partners working together to support Certificate Transparency. We are grateful for the monitors who noticed and reported this issue.
