Cited by 82Web Application Security VulnerabilitiesInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Towards a Complete View of the Certificate Ecosystem

Open access
VanderSloot, Benjamin, Amann, Johanna, Bernhard, Matthew, Durumeric, Zakir, Bailey, Michael, Halderman, J. Alex·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference

Abstract

The HTTPS certificate ecosystem has been of great interest to the measurement and security communities. Without any ground truth, researchers have attempted to study this PKI from a variety of fragmented perspectives, including passively monitored networks, scans of the popular domains or the IPv4 address space, search engines such as Censys, and Certificate Transparency (CT) logs. In this work, we comparatively analyze all these perspectives. We find that aggregated CT logs and Censys snapshots have many properties that complement each other, and that together they encompass over 99% of all certificates found by any of these techniques. However, they still miss 1.5% of certificates observed in a crawl of all domains in .com, .net, and .org. We go on to illustrate how this combined perspective affects results from previous studies. In light of these findings, we have worked with the operators of Censys to incorporate CT log data into its results going forward, and we recommend that future HTTPS measurement adopt this new vantage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2987443.2987462

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17]17. R. Holz, J. Amann, O. Mehani, M. Wachs, and M. A. Kaafar. TLS in the wild: An Internet-wide analysis of TLS-based protocols for electronic communication. In S. Capkun, editor, Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, Feb. 2016.
  2. [22]22. A. K. Lenstra, J. P. Hughes, M. Augier, J. W. Bos, T. Kleinjung, and C. Wachter. Public keys. In 32nd International Cryptology Conference, Aug. 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
VanderSloot, B., Amann, J., Bernhard, M., Durumeric, Z., Bailey, M., & Halderman, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • International Computer Science Institute (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-11-14
Pages
543-549
OpenAlex
W2552873532
Cited by
82
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.49
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Google Ph.D. Fellowship in Computer Security
  • National Science Foundation (ACI-1348077, CNS-1518888, CNS- 1409505, CNS- 1530915, CNS-1505790, CNS-1518741, CNS-1528156, CNS-1345254)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Application Security Vulnerabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
public key infrastructure, certificate transparency logs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review