1. Reproducible tarballs. The idea is that published source tarballs should be possible to reproduce independently somehow, and that this should be continuously tested and verified preferrably as part of the upstream project continuous integration system (e.g., GitHub action or GitLab pipeline). While nominally this looks easy to achieve, there are some complex matters in this, for example: what timestamps to use for files in the tarball? I ve brought up this aspect before.
2. Minimal source tarballs without generated vendor files. Most GNU Autoconf/Automake-based tarballs pre-generated files which are important for bootstrapping on exotic systems that does not have the required dependencies. For the bootstrapping story to succeed, this approach is important to support. However it has become clear that this practice raise significant costs and risks. Most modern GNU/Linux distributions have all the required dependencies and actually prefers to re-build everything from source code. These pre-generated extra files introduce uncertainty to that process.

1. The tarball should allow users to build the project, which is the entire purpose of all this. This means that at least all source code for the project has to be included.
2. The tarballs should be signed, for example with PGP or minisign.
3. The tarball should be possible to reproduce bit-by-bit by a third party using upstream s version controlled sources and a pointer to which revision was used (e.g., git tag or git commit).
4. The tarball should not require an Internet connection to download things.
   • Corollary: every external dependency either has to be explicitly documented as such (e.g., gcc and GnuTLS), or included in the tarball.
   • Observation: This means including all *.po gettext translations which are normally downloaded when building from version controlled sources.
5. The tarball should contain everything required to build the project from source using as much externally released versioned tooling as possible. This is the minimal property lacking today.
   • Corollary: This means including a vendored copy of OpenSSL or libz is not acceptable: link to them as external projects.
   • Open question: How about non-released external tooling such as gnulib or autoconf archive macros? This is a bit more delicate: most distributions either just package one current version of gnulib or autoconf archive, not previous versions. While this could change, and distributions could package the gnulib git repository (up to some current version) and the autoconf archive git repository and packages were set up to extract the version they need (gnulib s ./bootstrap already supports this via the gnulib-refdir parameter), this is not normally in place.
   • Suggested Corollary: The tarball should contain content from git submodule s such as gnulib and the necessary Autoconf archive M4 macros required by the project.
6. Similar to how the GNU project specify the ./configure interface we need a documented interface for how to bootstrap the project. I suggest to use the already well established idiom of running ./bootstrap to set up the package to later be able to be built via ./configure. Of course, some projects are not using the autotool ./configure interface and will not follow this aspect either, but like most build systems that compete with autotools have instructions on how to build the project, they should document similar interfaces for bootstrapping the source tarball to allow building.

• Don t do the obvious thing; it s never what you want
  • Q. Download and run whatever code from the internet?
• Option 1: WTF, no I don t want curl bash
• Option 2: Biting the curl bash bullet
  • Privilege separation
• OMG what a mess

[source.debian-packages]
directory = "/usr/share/cargo/registry"
[source.crates-io]
replace-with = "debian-packages"

Ubuntu is curated, so it probably wouldn t get this far. If it did, then the worst case is that it would get in the way of CI allowing other packages to be removed (again from a curated system, so people are used to removal not being self-service); but the release team would have no hesitation in removing a package like this to fix that, and it certainly wouldn t cause this amount of angst. If you did this in a PPA, then I can t think of any particular negative effects.

Assignment FooBar/
  Student A_21100_assignsubmission_file
    graded paper.pdf
    Student A's perfectly named assignment.pdf
    Student A's perfectly named assignment.xopp
  Student B_21094_assignsubmission_file
    graded paper.pdf
    Student B's perfectly named assignment.pdf
    Student B's perfectly named assignment.xopp
  Student C_21093_assignsubmission_file
    graded paper.pdf
    Student C's perfectly named assignment.pdf
    Student C's perfectly named assignment.xopp
 

#!/usr/bin/python3
# Copyright (C) 2023, Louis-Philippe V ronneau <pollo@debian.org>
#
# This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
#
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
"""
This script aims to take a directory containing PDF files exported via the
Moodle mass download function, remove everything but the final files to submit
back to the students and zip it back.
usage: ./moodle-zip.py <target_dir>
"""
import os
import shutil
import sys
import tempfile
from fnmatch import fnmatch
def sanity(directory):
    """Run sanity checks before doing anything else"""
    base_directory = os.path.basename(os.path.normpath(directory))
    if not os.path.isdir(directory):
        sys.exit(f"Target directory  directory  is not a valid directory")
    if os.path.exists(f"/tmp/ base_directory .zip"):
        sys.exit(f"Final ZIP file path '/tmp/ base_directory .zip' already exists")
    for root, dirnames, _ in os.walk(directory):
        for dirname in dirnames:
            corrige_present = False
            for file in os.listdir(os.path.join(root, dirname)):
                if fnmatch(file, 'graded paper.pdf'):
                    corrige_present = True
            if corrige_present is False:
                sys.exit(f"Directory  dirname  does not contain a 'graded paper.pdf' file")
def clean(directory):
    """Remove superfluous files, to keep only the graded PDF"""
    with tempfile.TemporaryDirectory() as tmp_dir:
        shutil.copytree(directory, tmp_dir, dirs_exist_ok=True)
        for root, _, filenames in os.walk(tmp_dir):
            for file in filenames:
                if not fnmatch(file, 'graded paper.pdf'):
                    os.remove(os.path.join(root, file))
        compress(tmp_dir, directory)
def compress(directory, target_dir):
    """Compress directory into a ZIP file and save it to the target dir"""
    target_dir = os.path.basename(os.path.normpath(target_dir))
    shutil.make_archive(f"/tmp/ target_dir ", 'zip', directory)
    print(f"Final ZIP file has been saved to '/tmp/ target_dir .zip'")
def main():
    """Main function"""
    target_dir = sys.argv[1]
    sanity(target_dir)
    clean(target_dir)
if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

Changes in prrd version 0.0.6 (2024-03-06)

• The summary function has received several enhancements:
  • Extended summary is only running when failures are seen.
  • The summariseQueue function now displays an anticipated completion time and remaining duration.
  • The use of optional package foghorn has been refined, and refactored, when running summaries.
• The dequeueJobs.r scripts can receive a date argument, the date can be parse via anydate if anytime ins present.
• The enqueeJobs.r now considers skipped package when running 'addfailed' while ensuring selecting packages are still on CRAN.
• The CI setup has been updated (twice),
• Enqueing and dequing functions and scripts now support relative directories, updated documentation (#18 by Joshua Ulrich).

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

This post is a review for Computing Reviews for Constructed truths truth and knowledge in a post-truth world , a book published in Springer Link

• I added Incus support to autopkgtest. Incus is a system container and virtual machine manager, forked from Canonical s LXD. I switched my laptop over to it and then quickly found that it was inconvenient not to be able to run Debian package test suites using autopkgtest, so I tweaked autopkgtest s existing LXD integration to support using either LXD or Incus.
• I discovered Perl::Critic and used it to tidy up some poor practices in several of my packages, including debconf. Perl used to be my language of choice but I ve been mostly using Python for over a decade now, so I m not as fluent as I used to be and some mechanical assistance with spotting common errors is helpful; besides, I m generally a big fan of applying static analysis to everything possible in the hope of reducing bug density. Of course, this did result in a couple of regressions (1, 2), but at least we caught them fairly quickly.
• I did some overdue debconf maintenance, mainly around tidying up error message handling in several places (1, 2, 3).
• I did some routine maintenance to move several of my upstream projects to a new Gnulib stable branch.
• debmirror includes a useful summary of how big a Debian mirror is, but it hadn t been updated since 2010 and the script to do so had bitrotted quite badly. I fixed that and added a recurring task for myself to refresh this every six months.

• Some time back I added AppArmor and seccomp confinement to man-db. This was mainly motivated by a desire to support manual pages in snaps (which is still open several years later ), but since reading manual pages involves a non-trivial text processing toolchain mostly written in C++, I thought it was reasonable to assume that some day it might have a vulnerability even though its track record has been good; so man now restricts the system calls that groff can execute and the parts of the file system that it can access. I stand by this, but it did cause some problems that have needed a succession of small fixes over the years. This month I issued DLA-3731-1, backporting some of those fixes to buster.
• I spent some time chasing a console-setup build failure following the removal of kFreeBSD support, which was uploaded by mistake. I suggested a set of fixes for this, but the author of the change to remove kFreeBSD support decided to take a different approach (fair enough), so I ve abandoned this.
• I updated the Debian zope.testrunner package to 6.3.1.
• openssh:
  • A Freexian collaborator had a problem with automating installations involving changes to /etc/ssh/sshd_config. This turned out to be resolvable without any changes, but in the process of investigating I noticed that my dodgy arrangements to avoid ucf prompts in certain cases had bitrotted slightly, which meant that some people might be prompted unnecessarily. I fixed this and arranged for it not to happen again.
  • Following a recent debian-devel discussion, I realized that some particularly awkward code in the OpenSSH packaging was now obsolete, and removed it.
• I backported a python-channels-redis fix to bookworm. I wasn t the first person to run into this, but I rediscovered it while working on debusine and it was confusing enough that it seemed worth fixing in stable.
• I fixed a simple build failure in storm.
• I dug into a very confusing cluster of celery build failures (1, 2, 3), and tracked the hardest bit down to a Python 3.12 regression, now fixed in unstable thanks to Stefano Rivera. Getting celery back into testing is blocked on the 64-bit time_t transition for now, but once that s out of the way it should flow smoothly again.

# megasasctl 
a0       PERC H730 Mini           encl:1 ldrv:2  batt:good
a0d0       558GiB RAID 1   1x2  optimal
a0d1      3067GiB RAID 0   1x11 optimal
a0e32s0     558GiB  a0d0  online   errs: media:0  other:19
a0e32s1     279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s2     279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s3     279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s4     279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s5     279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s6     279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s8     558GiB  a0d0  online   errs: media:0  other:17
a0e32s9     279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s10    279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s11    279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s12    279GiB  a0d1  online  
a0e32s13    279GiB  a0d1  online  
#

• Review the FAQ
• Discuss your options within your collective. Your options are:
  • spend down and close out your collective
  • spend down and transfer your collective to another fiscal sponsor, or
  • transfer your collective and funds to another charitable organization.
• Reply-all to this email with any questions, requests, or to set up a time to talk. Please make sure generalinquiries@opencollective.org is copied on your email.

• Last day to accept funds/receive donations: March 15, 2024
• Last day collectives can have employees: June 30, 2024
• Last day to spend or transfer funds: September 30, 2024

How to Fix it Yourself If what you, like me, need is simply for Bluetooth Audio to work with AAC in Debian s default desktop environment², then you ll need to rebuild the pipewire package to include the AAC codec. While the current version in Debian main has been built with AAC deliberately disabled, it is trivial to enable if you can install a version of the fdk-aac library. I preface this with the usual caveats when it comes to patent and licensing controversies. I am not a lawyer, building this package and/or using it could get you into legal trouble. These instructions have only been tested on an up-to-date copy of Debian 12.

1. Install pipewire s build dependencies

   sudo apt install build-essential devscripts
   sudo apt build-dep pipewire
   

2. Install libfdk-aac-dev

   sudo apt install libfdk-aac-dev
   

   If the above doesn t work you ll likely need to enable non-free and try again

   sudo sed -i 's/main/main non-free/g' /etc/apt/sources.list
   sudo apt update
   

   Alternatively, if you wish to ensure you are maximally license-compliant and patent un-infringing³, you can instead build fdk-aac-free which includes only those components of AAC that are known to be patent-free³. This is what should eventually end up in Debian to resolve this problem (see below).

   sudo apt install git-buildpackage
   mkdir fdk-aac-source
   cd fdk-aac-source
   git clone https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/fdk-aac
   cd fdk-aac
   gbp buildpackage
   sudo dpkg -i ../libfdk-aac2_*deb ../libfdk-aac-dev_*deb
   

3. Get the pipewire source code

   mkdir pipewire-source
   cd pipewire-source
   apt source pipewire
   

   This will create a bunch of files within the pipewire-source directory, but you ll only need the pipewire-<version> folder, this contains all the files you ll need to build the package, with all the debian-specific patches already applied. Note that you don t want to run the apt source command as root, as it will then create files that your regular user cannot edit.
4. Fix the dependencies and build options To fix up the build scripts to use the fdk-aac library, you need to save the following as pipewire-source/aac.patch

   --- debian/control.orig
   +++ debian/control
   @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@
                modemmanager-dev,
                pkg-config,
                python3-docutils,
   -               systemd [linux-any]
   -Build-Conflicts: libfdk-aac-dev
   +               systemd [linux-any],
   +               libfdk-aac-dev
    Standards-Version: 4.6.2
    Vcs-Browser: https://salsa.debian.org/utopia-team/pipewire
    Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/utopia-team/pipewire.git
   --- debian/rules.orig
   +++ debian/rules
   @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
    		-Dauto_features=enabled \
    		-Davahi=enabled \
    		-Dbluez5-backend-native-mm=enabled \
   -		-Dbluez5-codec-aac=disabled \
   +		-Dbluez5-codec-aac=enabled \
    		-Dbluez5-codec-aptx=enabled \
    		-Dbluez5-codec-lc3=enabled \
    		-Dbluez5-codec-lc3plus=disabled \
   

   Then you ll need to run patch from within the pipewire-<version> folder created by apt source:

   patch -p0 < ../aac.patch
   

5. Build pipewire

   cd pipewire-*
   debuild
   

   Note that you will likely see an error from debsign at the end of this process, this is harmless, you simply don t have a GPG key set up to sign your newly-built package⁴. Packages don t need to be signed to be installed, and debsign uses a somewhat non-standard signing process that dpkg does not check anyway.

1. Install libspa-0.2-bluetooth

   sudo dpkg -i libspa-0.2-bluetooth_*.deb
   

2. Restart PipeWire and/or Reboot

   sudo reboot
   

   Theoretically there s a set of services to restart here that would get pipewire to pick up the new library, probably just pipewire itself. But it s just as easy to restart and ensure everything is using the correct library.

Why This is a slightly unusual situation, as the fdk-aac library is licensed under what even the GNU project acknowledges is a free software license. However, this license explicitly informs the user that they need to acquire a patent license to use this software⁵:

3. NO PATENT LICENSE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED LICENSES TO ANY PATENT CLAIMS, including without limitation the patents of Fraunhofer, ARE GRANTED BY THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE. Fraunhofer provides no warranty of patent non-infringement with respect to this software. You may use this FDK AAC Codec software or modifications thereto only for purposes that are authorized by appropriate patent licenses.

To quote the GNU project:

Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing software under this license: you should first consider whether the licensor might aim to lure you into patent infringement.

AAC is covered by a number of patents, which expire at some point in the 2030s⁶. As such the current version of the library is potentially legally dubious to ship with any other software, as it could be considered patent-infringing³.

Fedora s solution Since 2017, Fedora has included a modified version of the library as fdk-aac-free, see the announcement and the bugzilla bug requesting review. This version of the library includes only the AAC LC profile, which is believed to be entirely patent-free³. Based on this, there is an open bug report in Debian requesting that the fdk-aac package be moved to the main component and that the pipwire package be updated to build against it.

The Debian NEW queue To resolve these bugs, a version of fdk-aac-free has been uploaded to Debian by Jeremy Bicha. However, to make it into Debian proper, it must first pass through the ftpmaster s NEW queue. The current version of fdk-aac-free has been in the NEW queue since July 2023. Based on conversations in some of the bugs above, it s been there since at least 2022⁷. I hope this helps anyone stuck with AAC to get their hardware working for them while we wait for the package to eventually make it through the NEW queue. Discuss on Hacker News

1. Such as, for example, any Apple AirPods, which only support AAC AFAICT.
2. Which, as of Debian 12 is GNOME 3 under Wayland with PipeWire.
3. I m not a lawyer, I don t know what kinds of infringement might or might not be possible here, do your own research, etc. ^{2 3 4}
4. And if you DO have a key setup with debsign you almost certainly don t need these instructions.
5. This was originally phrased as explicitly does not grant any patent rights. It was pointed out on Hacker News that this is not exactly what it says, as it also includes a specific note that you ll need to acquire your own patent license. I ve now quoted the relevant section of the license for clarity.
6. Wikipedia claims the base patents expire in 2031, with the extensions expiring in 2038, but its source for these claims is some guy s spreadsheet in a forum. The same discussion also brings up Wikipedia s claim and casts some doubt on it, so I m not entirely sure what s correct here, but I didn t feel like doing a patent deep-dive today. If someone can provide a clear answer that would be much appreciated.
7. According to Jeremy B cha: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1021370#17

This post is a review for Computing Reviews for 10 things software developers should learn about learning , a article published in Communications of the ACM

ART-drone said, I wouldn t recommend it. I lack a sense of proportional response. I don t advise engaging with me on any level.

There was no feed ID, but AdaCol2 supplied the name Lucia and when I asked it for more info, the gender signifier bb (which didn t translate) and he/him pronouns. (I asked because the humans would bug me for the information; I was as indifferent to human gender as it was possible to be without being unconscious.)

The Procedure I started off by finding all the unexpired certificates logged in Certificate Transparency (CT) logs that have a key that is in the pwnedkeys database as having been publicly disclosed. From this list of certificates, I removed duplicates by matching up issuer/serial number tuples, and then reduced the set by counting the number of unique certificates by their issuer. This gave me a list of the issuers of these certificates, which looks a bit like this:

/C=BE/O=GlobalSign nv-sa/CN=AlphaSSL CA - SHA256 - G4
/C=GB/ST=Greater Manchester/L=Salford/O=Sectigo Limited/CN=Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA
/C=GB/ST=Greater Manchester/L=Salford/O=Sectigo Limited/CN=Sectigo RSA Organization Validation Secure Server CA
/C=US/ST=Arizona/L=Scottsdale/O=GoDaddy.com, Inc./OU=http://certs.godaddy.com/repository//CN=Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2
/C=US/ST=Arizona/L=Scottsdale/O=Starfield Technologies, Inc./OU=http://certs.starfieldtech.com/repository//CN=Starfield Secure Certificate Authority - G2
/C=AT/O=ZeroSSL/CN=ZeroSSL RSA Domain Secure Site CA
/C=BE/O=GlobalSign nv-sa/CN=GlobalSign GCC R3 DV TLS CA 2020

Rather than try to work with raw issuers (because, as Andrew Ayer says, The SSL Certificate Issuer Field is a Lie), I mapped these issuers to the organisations that manage them, and summed the counts for those grouped issuers together.

The Data

Insert obligatory "not THAT data" comment here

The end result of this work is the following table, sorted by the count of certificates which have been compromised by exposing their private key:

Issuer	Compromised Count
Sectigo	170
ISRG (Let's Encrypt)	161
GoDaddy	141
DigiCert	81
GlobalSign	46
Entrust	3
SSL.com	1

If you re familiar with the CA ecosystem, you ll probably recognise that the organisations with large numbers of compromised certificates are also those who issue a lot of certificates. So far, nothing particularly surprising, then. Let s look more closely at the relationships, though, to see if we can get more useful insights.

Volume Control Using the issuance volume report from crt.sh, we can compare issuance volumes to compromise counts, to come up with a compromise rate . I m using the Unexpired Precertificates colume from the issuance volume report, as I feel that s the number that best matches the certificate population I m examining to find compromised certificates. To maintain parity with the previous table, this one is still sorted by the count of certificates that have been compromised.

Issuer	Issuance Volume	Compromised Count	Compromise Rate
Sectigo	88,323,068	170	1 in 519,547
ISRG (Let's Encrypt)	315,476,402	161	1 in 1,959,480
GoDaddy	56,121,429	141	1 in 398,024
DigiCert	144,713,475	81	1 in 1,786,586
GlobalSign	1,438,485	46	1 in 31,271
Entrust	23,166	3	1 in 7,722
SSL.com	171,816	1	1 in 171,816

If we now sort this table by compromise rate, we can see which organisations have the most (and least) leakiness going on from their customers:

Issuer	Issuance Volume	Compromised Count	Compromise Rate
Entrust	23,166	3	1 in 7,722
GlobalSign	1,438,485	46	1 in 31,271
SSL.com	171,816	1	1 in 171,816
GoDaddy	56,121,429	141	1 in 398,024
Sectigo	88,323,068	170	1 in 519,547
DigiCert	144,713,475	81	1 in 1,786,586
ISRG (Let's Encrypt)	315,476,402	161	1 in 1,959,480

By grouping by order-of-magnitude in the compromise rate, we can identify three bands :

• The Super Leakers: Customers of Entrust and GlobalSign seem to love to lose control of their private keys. For Entrust, at least, though, the small volumes involved make the numbers somewhat untrustworthy. The three compromised certificates could very well belong to just one customer, for instance. I m not aware of anything that GlobalSign does that would make them such an outlier, either, so I m inclined to think they just got unlucky with one or two customers, but as CAs don t include customer IDs in the certificates they issue, it s not possible to say whether that s the actual cause or not.
• The Regular Leakers: Customers of SSL.com, GoDaddy, and Sectigo all have compromise rates in the 1-in-hundreds-of-thousands range. Again, the low volumes of SSL.com make the numbers somewhat unreliable, but the other two organisations in this group have large enough numbers that we can rely on that data fairly well, I think.
• The Low Leakers: Customers of DigiCert and Let s Encrypt are at least three times less likely than customers of the regular leakers to lose control of their private keys. Good for them!

Now we have some useful insights we can think about.

Why Is It So?

If you don't know who Professor Julius Sumner Miller is, I highly recommend finding out

All of the organisations on the list, with the exception of Let s Encrypt, are what one might term traditional CAs. To a first approximation, it s reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the customers of these traditional CAs probably manage their certificates the same way they have for the past two decades or more. That is, they generate a key and CSR, upload the CSR to the CA to get a certificate, then copy the cert and key somewhere. Since humans are handling the keys, there s a higher risk of the humans using either risky practices, or making a mistake, and exposing the private key to the world. Let s Encrypt, on the other hand, issues all of its certificates using the ACME (Automatic Certificate Management Environment) protocol, and all of the Let s Encrypt documentation encourages the use of software tools to generate keys, issue certificates, and install them for use. Given that Let s Encrypt has 161 compromised certificates currently in the wild, it s clear that the automation in use is far from perfect, but the significantly lower compromise rate suggests to me that lifecycle automation at least reduces the rate of key compromise, even though it doesn t eliminate it completely.

Sidebar: ACME Does Not Currently Rule The World It is true that all of the organisations in this analysis also provide ACME issuance workflows, should customers desire it. However, the traditional CA companies have been around a lot longer than ACME has, and so they probably acquired many of their customers before ACME existed. Given that it s incredibly hard to get humans to change the way they do things, once they have a way that works , it seems reasonable to assume that most of the certificates issued by these CAs are handled in the same human-centric, error-prone manner they always have been. If organisations would like to refute this assumption, though, by sharing their data on ACME vs legacy issuance rates, I m sure we d all be extremely interested.

Explaining the Outlier The difference in presumed issuance practices would seem to explain the significant difference in compromise rates between Let s Encrypt and the other organisations, if it weren t for one outlier. This is a largely traditional CA, with the manual-handling issues that implies, but with a compromise rate close to that of Let s Encrypt. We are, of course, talking about DigiCert. The thing about DigiCert, that doesn t show up in the raw numbers from crt.sh, is that DigiCert manages the issuance of certificates for several of the biggest hosted TLS providers, such as CloudFlare and AWS. When these services obtain a certificate from DigiCert on their customer s behalf, the private key is kept locked away, and no human can (we hope) get access to the private key. This is supported by the fact that no certificates identifiably issued to either CloudFlare or AWS appear in the set of certificates with compromised keys. When we ask for all certificates issued by DigiCert , we get both the certificates issued to these big providers, which are very good at keeping their keys under control, as well as the certificates issued to everyone else, whose key handling practices may not be quite so stringent. It s possible, though not trivial, to account for certificates issued to these hosted TLS providers, because the certificates they use are issued from intermediates branded to those companies. With the crt.sh psql interface we can run this query to get the total number of unexpired precertificates issued to these managed services:

SELECT SUM(sub.NUM_ISSUED[2] - sub.NUM_EXPIRED[2])
  FROM (
    SELECT ca.name, max(coalesce(coalesce(nullif(trim(cc.SUBORDINATE_CA_OWNER), ''), nullif(trim(cc.CA_OWNER), '')), cc.INCLUDED_CERTIFICATE_OWNER)) as OWNER,
           ca.NUM_ISSUED, ca.NUM_EXPIRED
      FROM ccadb_certificate cc, ca_certificate cac, ca
     WHERE cc.CERTIFICATE_ID = cac.CERTIFICATE_ID
       AND cac.CA_ID = ca.ID
  GROUP BY ca.ID
  ) sub
 WHERE sub.name ILIKE '%Amazon%' OR sub.name ILIKE '%CloudFlare%' AND sub.owner = 'DigiCert';

The number I get from running that query is 104,316,112, which should be subtracted from DigiCert s total issuance figures to get a more accurate view of what DigiCert s regular customers do with their private keys. When I do this, the compromise rates table, sorted by the compromise rate, looks like this:

Issuer	Issuance Volume	Compromised Count	Compromise Rate
Entrust	23,166	3	1 in 7,722
GlobalSign	1,438,485	46	1 in 31,271
SSL.com	171,816	1	1 in 171,816
GoDaddy	56,121,429	141	1 in 398,024
"Regular" DigiCert	40,397,363	81	1 in 498,732
Sectigo	88,323,068	170	1 in 519,547
All DigiCert	144,713,475	81	1 in 1,786,586
ISRG (Let's Encrypt)	315,476,402	161	1 in 1,959,480

In short, it appears that DigiCert s regular customers are just as likely as GoDaddy or Sectigo customers to expose their private keys.

What Does It All Mean? The takeaway from all this is fairly straightforward, and not overly surprising, I believe.

The less humans have to do with certificate issuance, the less likely they are to compromise that certificate by exposing the private key. While it may not be surprising, it is nice to have some empirical evidence to back up the common wisdom. Fully-managed TLS providers, such as CloudFlare, AWS Certificate Manager, and whatever Azure s thing is called, is the platonic ideal of this principle: never give humans any opportunity to expose a private key. I m not saying you should use one of these providers, but the security approach they have adopted appears to be the optimal one, and should be emulated universally. The ACME protocol is the next best, in that there are a variety of standardised tools widely available that allow humans to take themselves out of the loop, but it s still possible for humans to handle (and mistakenly expose) key material if they try hard enough. Legacy issuance methods, which either cannot be automated, or require custom, per-provider automation to be developed, appear to be at least four times less helpful to the goal of avoiding compromise of the private key associated with a certificate.

Humans Are, Of Course, The Problem

No thanks, Bender, I'm busy tonight

This observation that if you don t let humans near keys, they don t get leaked is further supported by considering the biggest issuers by volume who have not issued any certificates whose keys have been compromised: Google Trust Services (fourth largest issuer overall, with 57,084,529 unexpired precertificates), and Microsoft Corporation (sixth largest issuer overall, with 22,852,468 unexpired precertificates). It appears that somewhere between most and basically all of the certificates these organisations issue are to customers of their public clouds, and my understanding is that the keys for these certificates are managed in same manner as CloudFlare and AWS the keys are locked away where humans can t get to them. It should, of course, go without saying that if a human can never have access to a private key, it makes it rather difficult for a human to expose it. More broadly, if you are building something that handles sensitive or secret data, the more you can do to keep humans out of the loop, the better everything will be.

Your Support is Appreciated If you d like to see more analysis of how key compromise happens, and the lessons we can learn from examining billions of certificates, please show your support by buying me a refreshing beverage. Trawling CT logs is thirsty work.

Appendix: Methodology Limitations In the interests of clarity, I feel it s important to describe ways in which my research might be flawed. Here are the things I know of that may have impacted the accuracy, that I couldn t feasibly account for.

• Time Periods: Because time never stops, there is likely to be some slight mismatches in the numbers obtained from the various data sources, because they weren t collected at exactly the same moment.
• Issuer-to-Organisation Mapping: It s possible that the way I mapped issuers to organisations doesn t match exactly with how crt.sh does it, meaning that counts might be skewed. I tried to minimise that by using the same data sources (the CCADB AllCertificates report) that I believe that crt.sh uses for its mapping, but I cannot be certain of a perfect match.
• Unwarranted Grouping: I ve drawn some conclusions about the practices of the various organisations based on their general approach to certificate issuance. If a particular subordinate CA that I ve grouped into the parent organisation is managed in some unusual way, that might cause my conclusions to be erroneous. I was able to fairly easily separate out CloudFlare, AWS, and Azure, but there are almost certainly others that I didn t spot, because hoo boy there are a lot of intermediate CAs out there.

Assumptions I didn t want to build a general purpose RF simulator, anything particularly generic, or something that would solve for any more than the things right in front of me. To do this as simply (and quickly all this code took about a day to write, including the beamforming math) I had to reduce the amount of work in front of me. Given that I was concerend with visualizing what the antenna pattern would look like in 3-D given some antenna geometry, operating frequency and configured beam, I made the following assumptions: All anetnnas are perfectly isotropic they receive a signal that is exactly the same strength no matter what direction the signal originates from. There s a single point-source isotropic emitter in the far-field (I modeled this as being 1 million meters away 1000 kilometers) of the antenna system. There is no noise, multipath, loss or distortion in the signal as it travels through space. Antennas will never interfere with each other.

2-D Polar Plots The last time I wrote something like this, I generated 2-D GIFs which show a radiation pattern, not unlike the polar plots you d see on a microphone. These are handy because it lets you visualize what the directionality of the antenna looks like, as well as in what direction emissions are captured, and in what directions emissions are nulled out. You can see these plots on spec sheets for antennas in both 2-D and 3-D form. Now, let s port the 2-D approach to 3-D and see how well it works out.

Writing the 3-D simulator As an EM wave travels through free space, the place at which you sample the wave controls that phase you observe at each time-step. This means, assuming perfectly synchronized clocks, a transmitter and receiver exactly one RF wavelength apart will observe a signal in-phase, but a transmitter and receiver a half wavelength apart will observe a signal 180 degrees out of phase. This means that if we take the distance between our point-source and antenna element, divide it by the wavelength, we can use the fractional part of the resulting number to determine the phase observed. If we multiply that number (in the range of 0 to just under 1) by tau, we can generate a complex number by taking the cos and sin of the multiplied phase (in the range of 0 to tau), assuming the transmitter is emitting a carrier wave at a static amplitude and all clocks are in perfect sync.

 let observed_phases: Vec<Complex> = antennas
.iter()
.map( antenna   
let distance = (antenna - tx).magnitude();
let distance = distance - (distance as i64 as f64);
((distance / wavelength) * TAU)
 )
.map( phase  Complex(phase.cos(), phase.sin()))
.collect();

At this point, given some synthetic transmission point and each antenna, we know what the expected complex sample would be at each antenna. At this point, we can adjust the phase of each antenna according to the beamforming phase offset configuration, and add up every sample in order to determine what the entire system would collectively produce a sample as.

 let beamformed_phases: Vec<Complex> = ...;
let magnitude = beamformed_phases
.iter()
.zip(observed_phases.iter())
.map( (beamformed, observed)  observed * beamformed)
.reduce( acc, el  acc + el)
.unwrap()
.abs();

Armed with this information, it s straight forward to generate some number of (Azimuth, Elevation) points to sample, generate a transmission point far away in that direction, resolve what the resulting Complex sample would be, take its magnitude, and use that to create an (x, y, z) point at (azimuth, elevation, magnitude). The color attached two that point is based on its distance from (0, 0, 0). I opted to use the Life Aquatic table for this one. After this process is complete, I have a point cloud of ((x, y, z), (r, g, b)) points. I wrote a small program using kiss3d to render point cloud using tons of small spheres, and write out the frames to a set of PNGs, which get compiled into a GIF. Now for the fun part, let s take a look at some radiation patterns!

1x4 Phased Array The first configuration is a phased array where all the elements are in perfect alignment on the y and z axis, and separated by some offset in the x axis. This configuration can sweep 180 degrees (not the full 360), but can t be steared in elevation at all. Let s take a look at what this looks like for a well constructed 1x4 phased array: And now let s take a look at the renders as we play with the configuration of this array and make sure things look right. Our initial quarter-wavelength spacing is very effective and has some outstanding performance characteristics. Let s check to see that everything looks right as a first test. Nice. Looks perfect. When pointing forward at (0, 0), we d expect to see a torus, which we do. As we sweep between 0 and 360, astute observers will notice the pattern is mirrored along the axis of the antennas, when the beam is facing forward to 0 degrees, it ll also receive at 180 degrees just as strong. There s a small sidelobe that forms when it s configured along the array, but it also becomes the most directional, and the sidelobes remain fairly small.

Long compared to the wavelength (1 ) Let s try again, but rather than spacing each antenna of a wavelength apart, let s see about spacing each antenna 1 of a wavelength apart instead. The main lobe is a lot more narrow (not a bad thing!), but some significant sidelobes have formed (not ideal). This can cause a lot of confusion when doing things that require a lot of directional resolution unless they re compensated for.

Going from ( to 5 ) The last model begs the question - what do things look like when you separate the antennas from each other but without moving the beam? Let s simulate moving our antennas but not adjusting the configured beam or operating frequency. Very cool. As the spacing becomes longer in relation to the operating frequency, we can see the sidelobes start to form out of the end of the antenna system.

2x2 Phased Array The second configuration I want to try is a phased array where the elements are in perfect alignment on the z axis, and separated by a fixed offset in either the x or y axis by their neighbor, forming a square when viewed along the x/y axis. Let s take a look at what this looks like for a well constructed 2x2 phased array: Let s do the same as above and take a look at the renders as we play with the configuration of this array and see what things look like. This configuration should suppress the sidelobes and give us good performance, and even give us some amount of control in elevation while we re at it. Sweet. Heck yeah. The array is quite directional in the configured direction, and can even sweep a little bit in elevation, a definite improvement from the 1x4 above.

Long compared to the wavelength (1 ) Let s do the same thing as the 1x4 and take a look at what happens when the distance between elements is long compared to the frequency of operation say, 1 of a wavelength apart? What happens to the sidelobes given this spacing when the frequency of operation is much different than the physical geometry? Mesmerising. This is my favorate render. The sidelobes are very fun to watch come in and out of existence. It looks absolutely other-worldly.

Going from ( to 5 ) Finally, for completeness' sake, what do things look like when you separate the antennas from each other just as we did with the 1x4? Let s simulate moving our antennas but not adjusting the configured beam or operating frequency. Very very cool. The sidelobes wind up turning the very blobby cardioid into an electromagnetic dog toy. I think we ve proven to ourselves that using a phased array much outside its designed frequency of operation seems like a real bad idea.

Future Work Now that I have a system to test things out, I m a bit more confident that my beamforming code is close to right! I d love to push that code over the line and blog about it, since it s a really interesting topic on its own. Once I m sure the code involved isn t full of lies, I ll put it up on the hztools org, and post about it here and on mastodon.