How does SSL really work?

Question

How does SSL work?

Where is the certificate installed on the client (or browser?) and the server (or web server?)?

How does the trust/encryption/authentication process start when you enter the URL into the browser and get the page from the server?

How does the HTTPS protocol recognize the certificate? Why can't HTTP work with certificates when it is the certificates which do all the trust/encryption/authentication work?

I think this is a reasonable question - understanding how SSL works is step 1, implementing it correctly is step 2 through step infinity. — synthesizerpatel
See also: security.stackexchange.com/questions/20803/how-does-ssl-work — Luc
Here's a good run-through of the https handshake process at a byte level — Rob Church
@StingyJack Don't be a policy nazi here. People come looking for help. Don't deny them all assistance because you find the question does not perfectly match with the rules. — Koray Tugay
@KorayTugay - noone is denying assistance. This does belong on Security or Sysadmin where it is better targeted, but OP would typically benefit in this forum by adding some bit of programming context instead of posting a general IT question. How many people get questions shut down when they are not tied to a specific programming problem? Probably too many, hence my nudging OP to make that association. — StingyJack

Mark E. Haase Mark E. Haase · Accepted Answer · 2011-09-11T22:26:58

Note: I wrote my original answer very hastily, but since then, this has turned into a fairly popular question/answer, so I have expanded it a bit and made it more precise.

TLS Capabilities

"SSL" is the name that is most often used to refer to this protocol, but SSL specifically refers to the proprietary protocol designed by Netscape in the mid 90's. "TLS" is an IETF standard that is based on SSL, so I will use TLS in my answer. These days, the odds are that nearly all of your secure connections on the web are really using TLS, not SSL.

TLS has several capabilities:

Encrypt your application layer data. (In your case, the application layer protocol is HTTP.)
Authenticate the server to the client.
Authenticate the client to the server.

#1 and #2 are very common. #3 is less common. You seem to be focusing on #2, so I'll explain that part.

Authentication

A server authenticates itself to a client using a certificate. A certificate is a blob of data[1] that contains information about a website:

Domain name
Public key
The company that owns it
When it was issued
When it expires
Who issued it
Etc.

You can achieve confidentiality (#1 above) by using the public key included in the certificate to encrypt messages that can only be decrypted by the corresponding private key, which should be stored safely on that server.[2] Let's call this key pair KP1, so that we won't get confused later on. You can also verify that the domain name on the certificate matches the site you're visiting (#2 above).

But what if an adversary could modify packets sent to and from the server, and what if that adversary modified the certificate you were presented with and inserted their own public key or changed any other important details? If that happened, the adversary could intercept and modify any messages that you thought were securely encrypted.

To prevent this very attack, the certificate is cryptographically signed by somebody else's private key in such a way that the signature can be verified by anybody who has the corresponding public key. Let's call this key pair KP2, to make it clear that these are not the same keys that the server is using.

Certificate Authorities

So who created KP2? Who signed the certificate?

Oversimplifying a bit, a certificate authority creates KP2, and they sell the service of using their private key to sign certificates for other organizations. For example, I create a certificate and I pay a company like Verisign to sign it with their private key.[3] Since nobody but Verisign has access to this private key, none of us can forge this signature.

And how would I personally get ahold of the public key in KP2 in order to verify that signature?

Well we've already seen that a certificate can hold a public key — and computer scientists love recursion — so why not put the KP2 public key into a certificate and distribute it that way? This sounds a little crazy at first, but in fact that's exactly how it works. Continuing with the Verisign example, Verisign produces a certificate that includes information about who they are, what types of things they are allowed to sign (other certificates), and their public key.

Now if I have a copy of that Verisign certificate, I can use that to validate the signature on the server certificate for the website I want to visit. Easy, right?!

Well, not so fast. I had to get the Verisign certificate from somewhere. What if somebody spoofs the Verisign certificate and puts their own public key in there? Then they can forge the signature on the server's certificate, and we're right back where we started: a man-in-the-middle attack.

Certificate Chains

Continuing to think recursively, we could of course introduce a third certificate and a third key pair (KP3) and use that to sign the Verisign certifcate. We call this a certificate chain: each certificate in the chain is used to verify the next certificate. Hopefully you can already see that this recursive approach is just turtles/certificates all the way down. Where does it stop?

Since we can't create an infinite number of certificates, the certificate chain obviously has to stop somewhere, and that's done by including a certificate in the chain that is self-signed.

I'll pause for a moment while you pick up the pieces of brain matter from your head exploding. Self-signed?!

Yes, at the end of the certificate chain (a.k.a. the "root"), there will be a certificate that uses it's own keypair to sign itself. This eliminates the infinite recursion problem, but it doesn't fix the authentication problem. Anybody can create a self-signed certificate that says anything on it, just like I can create a fake Princeton diploma that says I triple majored in politics, theoretical physics, and applied butt-kicking and then sign my own name at the bottom.

The [somewhat unexciting] solution to this problem is just to pick some set of self-signed certificates that you explicitly trust. For example, I might say, "I trust this Verisign self-signed certificate."

With that explicit trust in place, now I can validate the entire certificate chain. No matter how many certificates there are in the chain, I can validate each signature all the way down to the root. When I get to the root, I can check whether that root certificate is one that I explicitly trust. If so, then I can trust the entire chain.

Conferred Trust

Authentication in TLS uses a system of conferred trust. If I want to hire an auto mechanic, I may not trust any random mechanic that I find. But maybe my friend vouches for a particular mechanic. Since I trust my friend, then I can trust that mechanic.

When you buy a computer or download a browser, it comes with a few hundred root certificates that it explicitly trusts.[4] The companies that own and operate those certificates can confer that trust to other organizations by signing their certificates.

This is far from a perfect system. Some times a CA may issue a certificate erroneously. In those cases, the certificate may need to be revoked. Revocation is tricky since the issued certificate will always be cryptographically correct; an out-of-band protocol is necessary to find out which previously valid certificates have been revoked. In practice, some of these protocols aren't very secure, and many browsers don't check them anyway.

Sometimes an entire CA is compromised. For example, if you were to break into Verisign and steal their root signing key, then you could spoof any certificate in the world. Notice that this doesn't just affect Verisign customers: even if my certificate is signed by Thawte (a competitor to Verisign), that doesn't matter. My certificate can still be forged using the compromised signing key from Verisign.

This isn't just theoretical. It has happened in the wild. DigiNotar was famously hacked and subsequently went bankrupt. Comodo was also hacked, but inexplicably they remain in business to this day.

Even when CAs aren't directly compromised, there are other threats in this system. For example, a government use legal coercion to compel a CA to sign a forged certificate. Your employer may install their own CA certificate on your employee computer. In these various cases, traffic that you expect to be "secure" is actually completely visible/modifiable to the organization that controls that certificate.

Some replacements have been suggested, including Convergence, TACK, and DANE.

Endnotes

[1] TLS certificate data is formatted according to the X.509 standard. X.509 is based on ASN.1 ("Abstract Syntax Notation #1"), which means that it is not a binary data format. Therefore, X.509 must be encoded to a binary format. DER and PEM are the two most common encodings that I know of.

[2] In practice, the protocol actually switches over to a symmetric cipher, but that's a detail that's not relevant to your question.

[3] Presumable, the CA actually validates who you are before signing your certificate. If they didn't do that, then I could just create a certificate for google.com and ask a CA to sign it. With that certificiate, I could man-in-the-middle any "secure" connection to google.com. Therefore, the validation step is a very important factor in the operation of a CA. Unfortunately, it's not very clear how rigorous this validation process is at the hundreds of CAs around the world.

[4] See Mozilla's list of trusted CAs.