3

If I verify the fingerprint of a self-signed SSL certificate on the client, can a man-in-the-middle attack still occur?

7

Only if they manage to actually reproduce the fingerprint, which is much, much harder.

The Fingerprint is actually the most reliable method of determining a certificate is what it should be. It's just ignored by just about everyone.

5

A self signed certificate is just as "secure" as a CA issued certificate given the same cryptographic specifications. All the same vulnerabilities and strengths are there.

The only difference is that clients generally have a preconfigured list of trusted CAs and will not ask, where they'll always initially ask for self-signed. Which it sounds like you're already aware of.

  • 1. "All the same vulnerabilities and strengths are there." man-in-the-middle not applicable to vulnerabilities and strengths 2. You did answer on clearly asked question at all. Downvote, ace of diamonds – Lazy Badger Mar 24 '12 at 4:40
  • 1
    Erh, no he did answer the question correctly imo. I think you are the one that's talking bs. – Lucas Kauffman Mar 24 '12 at 7:33
  • 1
    @LazyBadger I don't think you understand security, perhaps you should read up on MITM attacks and how they can apply to HTTPS communication. My answer implies that using a self signed certificate makes it no more or less likely that a MITM attack can be performed. If you are having trouble understanding you should ask for help. – Chris S Mar 24 '12 at 14:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.