Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

DigiNotar

DigiNotar B.V. was a certificate authority founded in 1998 as a notarial collaboration providing digital certificate services, including as a trusted under the national public key infrastructure for government entities. Acquired by Vasco Data Security in January 2011, the company specialized in issuing SSL certificates and electronic signatures until a major security breach compromised its systems, leading to its declaration on September 20, 2011. The intrusion, detected on July 19, 2011 but originating as early as June, allowed attackers to generate 531 rogue certificates for high-profile domains including google.com, *.google.com, and microsoft.com, facilitating man-in-the-middle attacks that undermined security, particularly affecting users in attempting secure connections to services like . An independent investigation by Fox-IT, detailed in the Black Tulip report, exposed critical vulnerabilities such as outdated software, weak passwords, insufficient logging, and lack of intrusion detection, which not only destroyed DigiNotar's credibility but also prompted global revocation of its root certificates by major browsers and heightened scrutiny of certificate authority practices worldwide.

Company Background

Founding and Operations

DigiNotar B.V. was founded in 1998 in the as a privately owned notarial collaboration, initially focused on digital notarization services that evolved into broader operations. The company provided digital certificate services as a , issuing (PKI) solutions to support secure electronic transactions and identities. As a certification authority, DigiNotar issued various types of digital certificates, including SSL/TLS certificates for website authentication and qualified certificates for electronic signatures under eIDAS-equivalent standards. It held a prominent role in the PKIoverheid framework, supplying certificates for e-services such as logius.nl and other applications requiring high-assurance PKI. Operations emphasized compliance with national and international standards for certificate issuance, including audits for trustworthiness, positioning DigiNotar as a key player in enabling secure digital and commercial activities in the .

Acquisition and Pre-Breach Status

DigiNotar B.V. was founded in as a privately owned notarial collaboration in the , initially focused on providing services as a trusted service provider (TSP). The company specialized in issuing SSL certificates and signatures, with a primary customer base consisting of institutions, citizens, and professional users for applications and secure online services. By the early , DigiNotar had established itself as a key player in the public sector's infrastructure, handling issuance for official domains and maintaining qualifications under standards such as WebTrust for certification authorities. On January 10, 2011, U.S.-based VASCO Data Security International, Inc., a provider of and e-signature solutions, acquired DigiNotar through a stock and asset purchase agreement valued at €10 million in cash (approximately $12.9 million USD at the time). The transaction targeted DigiNotar's and operational assets to bolster VASCO's expansion into Internet trust services and (PKI) markets. Following the acquisition, DigiNotar operated as a , continuing to issue certificates for high-profile governmental websites, such as those under the Logius.nl portal, with its root certificates embedded in trust stores of major browsers including and Mozilla Firefox. Prior to the detection of the intrusion on , , DigiNotar maintained routine operations without public indications of compromise, generating revenue primarily from contracts and holding a position of trust in the Dutch . The company's infrastructure supported secure communications for national , though practices later revealed in investigations included shared administrative access across systems, which had persisted from its pre-acquisition configuration. VASCO reported minimal initial revenue contribution from DigiNotar in the first half of , reflecting its niche focus on government-oriented certification rather than broader commercial markets.

The 2011 Security Breach

Detection of the Intrusion

DigiNotar identified the intrusion on July 19, 2011, when internal monitoring revealed a mismatch between certificates generated by its hardware security modules and the corresponding entries in administrative logs. This discrepancy indicated unauthorized access to the infrastructure, though the company initially assessed the incident as limited and revoked only a subset of the affected certificates without broader disclosure. Public detection of the breach's severity occurred later, on August 27, 2011, after an Iranian using the pseudonym "alibo" reported inability to access due to browser warnings about a DigiNotar-signed for google.com. The user's post, combined with screenshots of the anomalous , alerted independent researchers, who verified the forgery and traced it to DigiNotar's authority. This external scrutiny exposed the scale of the compromise, including 531 fraudulent certificates issued for domains such as , , and the CIA, primarily targeting Iranian users to enable man-in-the-middle attacks.

Scope and Methods of the Hack

The intrusion into DigiNotar's systems encompassed multiple network segments, including the external DMZ-ext-net (10.10.20.0/24), the internal Secure-net (172.18.20.0/24), and various (CA) servers such as Public-CA, Relation-CA, Qualified-CA, Root-CA, and others integrated within a single . This allowed the attacker to access critical hardware security modules (HSMs) and issue 531 rogue certificates, with 446 from Public-CA and 85 from Relation-CA, targeting high-profile domains including *.google.com (26 certificates), *.yahoo.com, *.microsoft.com, *.skype.com, and *.torproject.org. The breach facilitated man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks, primarily affecting approximately 300,000 users—95% from —via DNS cache poisoning and interception of traffic to services like , as evidenced by over 300,000 OCSP requests traced to Iranian IP addresses. The attack commenced on June 17, 2011, with the compromise of web servers in the DMZ-ext-net segment, such as Main-web and Docproof2, likely exploiting outdated software vulnerabilities including an unpatched DotNetNuke platform and weak (RDP) access. The intruder employed tunneling techniques over port 443 to evade detection and used compromised systems as and proxies to mask origins, with IP traces linking activity to Iranian infrastructure. deployments, including trojans like troj65.exe, njnypgqa.exe, and tools such as mimikatz.exe for credential dumping and Cain & Abel for , enabled escalation of privileges. By July 1, 2011, access extended to Secure-net, facilitated by inadequate rules, poor , and shared administrative credentials across the domain. Certificate issuance was achieved through custom scripts executed on compromised CA servers, granting administrative rights to generate and sign fraudulent certificates without proper validation, bypassing HSM protections via weak smartcard controls and unpatched systems. The attacker exfiltrated data, such as database dumps (e.g., dbpub. totaling over 59 MB), and tampered with logs to conceal activities, with the first certificate appearing on July 10, 2011, and the last on July 20, 2011. Signatures left in files, including "Janam Fadaye Rahbar" (a pro-Iranian phrase also seen in the prior Comodo breach), along with hardcoded Iranian IPs in upload scripts to external dropboxes, indicate the intruder's likely affiliation with Iranian state interests, though no direct attribution was conclusively proven in the forensic analysis. Activity ceased by July 24, 2011, undetected internally until July 19, 2011, due to absent intrusion detection and monitoring failures.

Fraudulent Certificate Issuance

Specific Certificates Compromised

During the intrusion, attackers issued 531 fraudulent certificates from DigiNotar's systems between July 10 and 20, 2011, primarily using the Public-CA and Relation-CA servers. Of these, 344 certificates featured domain names as their , targeting high-profile websites and services, while 187 masqueraded as root certificates from other authorities, potentially enabling further forgery though lacking issuance constraints. The full extent may exceed identified instances, as DigiNotar lacked comprehensive logging of issuance requests. Domain-specific certificates focused on popular platforms vulnerable to man-in-the-middle interception, with the wildcard certificate for *.google.com—issued 26 times—exploited to redirect Iranian users' traffic, affecting roughly 300,000 unique IP addresses, 99% from . Other notable targets included communication and security services, reflecting likely state-sponsored motives aimed at surveillance.
Domain/OrganizationCertificates IssuedNotes
*.google.com26Used in confirmed MITM attacks on Gmail.
www.cia.gov25U.S. intelligence agency site.
*.skype.com22VoIP service wildcard.
login.yahoo.com19Email login portal.
twitter.com18Social media platform.
*.torproject.org14Anonymity network.
www.facebook.com14Social network.
www.mossad.gov.il5Israeli intelligence agency.
*.microsoft.com3Software giant wildcard.
Root certificates impersonated established authorities to undermine trust chains, including 45 for Thawte Root CA, 40 for Equifax Root CA, and 21 each for and Root CAs, though none were observed in active sub-issuance. These forgeries exploited DigiNotar's inclusion in browser trust stores, enabling potential or interception without immediate detection.

Exploitation and Real-World Impact

The fraudulent certificates issued during the DigiNotar compromise enabled man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks, allowing attackers to impersonate trusted domains and intercept encrypted traffic. A rogue certificate for google.com, issued on July 10, 2011, was deployed to target Iranian users accessing Google services, decrypting and monitoring communications that users believed secure. Attackers likely exploited DNS redirection alongside the certificate to route traffic through controlled servers, capturing data such as contents, search queries, and login credentials without users' awareness. This exploitation, suspected to involve actors linked to the Iranian seeking to surveil dissidents and circumvent self-imposed restrictions, persisted until the 's on August 29, 2011, following detection by an Iranian user on August 28. At least a handful of confirmed victims experienced intercepted sessions, with broader potential exposure for thousands of Iranian users during the period, though exact figures remain unverified due to the covert nature of the attacks. The operation demonstrated how compromised certificate authorities could facilitate state-level and , bypassing client-side warnings since browsers trusted DigiNotar as a root authority. Real-world consequences extended beyond direct victims, amplifying systemic vulnerabilities in the (PKI). The incident invalidated over 500 DigiNotar-issued certificates, including those for government sites, disrupting secure access for public services and eroding reliance on centralized trust models. It prompted immediate browser vendors, including and , to blacklist DigiNotar roots by September 2011, rendering legacy certificates useless and exposing users worldwide to potential service outages until reissuance. Long-term, the breach catalyzed reforms like enhanced protocols, as it revealed how a single point of failure in CAs could undermine global web security, though no widespread non-Iranian exploitation was documented.

Investigations and Root Causes

The Black Tulip Report

The Black Tulip Report, formally titled "Report of the Investigation into the DigiNotar Certificate Authority Breach," was published on August 13, 2012, by Fox-IT, a cybersecurity firm commissioned by the of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. The investigation aimed to forensically analyze the intrusion into DigiNotar's network, determine the scope of compromise across its certificate authorities (CAs), identify the intruder's methods, assess DigiNotar's security practices, and provide evidence for potential criminal proceedings while offering recommendations for mitigation. Fox-IT's team, including experts like Ronald Prins, conducted the probe starting August 30, 2011, following public disclosure of the breach, examining logs, systems, and artifacts from DigiNotar's infrastructure. The report establishes that the intrusion began on June 17, 2011, with the attacker exploiting an unpatched vulnerability in an outdated version of DotNetNuke content management software on DigiNotar's external web servers (Main-web and Docproof2). From there, the intruder uploaded malicious scripts (e.g., settings.aspx and up.aspx) to pivot laterally, tunneling traffic over port 443 to evade detection and using tools like and to harvest credentials for broader network access. By July 1, 2011, the attacker reached the Secure-net segment housing CA servers, enabling issuance of 531 rogue certificates between July 10 and July 20, 2011, primarily from the Public-CA (446 certificates) and Relation-CA (85 certificates), including fakes for domains like *.google.com and login.yahoo.com. DigiNotar internally detected anomalous activity on July 19, 2011, but failed to contain it promptly, with the last rogue issuance occurring on July 20 and continuing until July 22. Fox-IT documented extensive compromise across 23 systems, including all major except the isolated CCV-CA, with seven terabytes of data exfiltrated, encompassing private keys, certificates, logs, and credentials. The attacker targeted Iranian users via man-in-the-middle attacks, evidenced by over 665,000 OCSP requests (95% from ) starting July 27, 2011, likely facilitated by DNS cache poisoning. Key security lapses included absent (no firewalls blocking lateral movement), reliance on weak passwords (e.g., MSSQLusr with administrative rights), lack of tamper-proof logging for CA operations, unmonitored smartcard usage for modules, and failure to air-gap critical CA servers from the corporate network. These deficiencies allowed undetected persistence and log manipulation, undermining DigiNotar's compliance with industry standards despite prior audits. In its conclusions, the report deems all DigiNotar-issued certificates untrustworthy due to potential key compromise, recommending wholesale , browser trust store removal, and whitelisting for reissuance of verified ones. It advocates systemic PKI reforms, such as mandatory air-gapping, rigorous patching, continuous penetration testing, role-based access controls, and secure logging to prevent recurrence, highlighting how DigiNotar's operational negligence amplified the intruder's low-sophistication tactics into a incident. The findings underscored vulnerabilities in the broader CA ecosystem, influencing global standards for certificate validation and authority auditing.

Identified Security Failures and Negligence

The Fox-IT investigation, detailed in the Black Tulip report, identified a cascade of technical and procedural failures that enabled the intruder to compromise DigiNotar's (CA) infrastructure starting on June 17, 2011. Foremost was the inadequate , where rules included exceptions permitting tunneling from the internet-exposed DMZ-external network (DMZ-ext-net) to the supposedly isolated Secure-net containing CA servers; this allowed lateral movement undetected after initial access via unpatched public-facing servers like Main-web and Docproof2. Weak access controls compounded this, as all eight CA servers operated within a single secured by a solitary, easily guessable password, granting the intruder full administrative privileges across the environment once the BAPI-db server was exploited using the MSSQLusr account with local admin rights. Further lapses included the complete absence of real-time monitoring, intrusion detection systems, or antivirus software on production servers, alongside ignored updates for 30 critical vulnerabilities, which left systems like those running outdated DotNetNuke software exposed to known exploits. Logging deficiencies were equally severe: no centralized secure log server existed, certificate serial numbers were not recorded, and logs resided on the compromised CA servers themselves, enabling tampering—evidenced by integrity failures in Public-CA logs on July 20, 2011, and deletions from Main-web logs up to July 11, 2011. Suspicious activity, such as anomalous connections on July 2, 2011, at 06:40:44, went unnoticed until self-detection on July 19, 2011, despite ongoing intruder presence. Procedural negligence amplified these issues, with no air-gapping of critical components despite their sensitivity, inadequate lacking verifiable smartcard activation records for private keys (except on the CCV-CA server), and failure to enforce —system administrators doubled as security overseers without regular penetration testing or policy audits. Incident response was mishandled, as DigiNotar presumed containment post-July 2011 cleanup, overlooking persistent access that facilitated 531 rogue certificates issued between July 10 and 20, 2011, including for high-value domains like *.google.com. Non-compliance with baseline PKI standards, such as those for secure and forensic readiness, reflected broader oversight, prioritizing over risk mitigation in a self-regulated environment.

Immediate Consequences

Industry and Browser Responses

On August 29, 2011, Google announced that Chrome would distrust all certificates issued by DigiNotar, citing the issuance of fraudulent certificates including one for google.com used in man-in-the-middle attacks. Mozilla, on the same day, published a security blog post detailing the fraudulent google.com certificate and immediately revoked trust in DigiNotar across all Mozilla software, including Firefox; this was not a temporary measure but a permanent removal from the root store, effective in Firefox 6 and later versions. Microsoft issued Security Advisory 2607712 on August 29, 2011, removing DigiNotar root certificates from the Microsoft Trusted Root Certificate Program, which automatically blocked validation of DigiNotar-issued certificates in , , and other Windows components on and later systems without requiring user action. These actions by major browser vendors—Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft—effectively isolated DigiNotar from the web trust ecosystem, rendering its certificates invalid for secure connections worldwide and prompting similar distrust decisions from entities like , which patched its browser bundle to exclude DigiNotar on September 1, 2011. The , which coordinates standards, did not issue an immediate unified revocation but the independent browser responses underscored the forum's baseline requirements for certificate validation, accelerating scrutiny on auditing practices in subsequent discussions.

Dutch Government Interventions

Following the public disclosure of the DigiNotar breach on August 30, 2011, the Dutch government convened an emergency on , 2011, during which it announced the revocation of trust in all certificates issued by DigiNotar, citing compromised servers as the basis for the decision. post and OPTA subsequently withdrew DigiNotar's to issue qualified certificates, effectively halting its ability to operate as a recognized under Dutch regulatory oversight. In parallel, the assumed administrative control over DigiNotar's operations on or around September 5, 2011, to prevent further disruptions while maintaining the functionality of affected government websites reliant on its certificates. This intervention included directing Logius, the Dutch governmental IT organization, to coordinate certificate replacements and issue warnings to site operators using DigiNotar-issued public certificates. To assess the full extent of the compromise, the government commissioned Fox-IT, a Dutch cybersecurity firm, to conduct a forensic investigation; the resulting Black Tulip report, released on September 5, 2011, detailed the issuance of 531 fraudulent certificates targeting domains such as google.com and skype.com, primarily affecting Iranian users. An initial assessment by GovCERT.NL claimed that government-specific PKIoverheid certificates under the Staat der Nederlanden root were unaffected, leading to a temporary exemption request from browser vendors like Mozilla; however, a subsequent government audit rescinded this finding, confirming broader compromise and prompting full withdrawal of trust. The government also coordinated internationally by requesting , on September 4, 2011, to delay deployment of a update distrusting DigiNotar roots in the for one week, allowing time to migrate affected systems without immediate widespread outage. These measures prioritized and , reflecting recognition of DigiNotar's systemic lapses as identified in the .

Long-Term Fallout

Bankruptcy Proceedings

DigiNotar B.V. filed a voluntary petition on September 19, 2011, under Article 4 of the Dutch Act, citing exacerbated by the loss of client trust and revenue following the certificate compromise. The Haarlem District Court declared the company bankrupt the following day, September 20, 2011, initiating formal proceedings. The court appointed a (curator), supervised by a , to oversee the , asset , and claims process. This managed the winding up of operations, with responsibilities including verifying claims and distributing any recoverable assets, though the company's minimal pre-bankruptcy —less than €100,000 from SSL and EVSSL certificates in the first half of —limited potential recoveries. Parent company VASCO Data Security, which had acquired DigiNotar for $12.9 million in January 2011, reported anticipated losses of $3.3 million to $4.8 million from the proceedings, accounting for write-downs and operational wind-down costs treated as discontinued operations. The bankruptcy effectively terminated DigiNotar's certificate authority activities, with no resumption possible due to revoked industry trust and regulatory exclusions. In the aftermath of the breach, parent company VASCO Data Security International Inc. incurred financial losses estimated at approximately €4 million, primarily from the impairment of intangible assets associated with DigiNotar and related operational disruptions. These costs contributed to the rapid erosion of DigiNotar's market viability, as revocation of its certificates by major browsers and governments eliminated ongoing revenue streams. Legally, Dutch prosecutors initiated an into potential by DigiNotar on September 6, 2011, focusing on lapses that enabled the intrusion. However, no criminal charges were filed against company personnel. In a key civil case, the District Court on August 7, 2014, held DigiNotar's former owners liable for breaching warranties in the 2011 share sale to VASCO, ruling that they failed to adequately secure systems despite known vulnerabilities. The court ordered compensation exceeding €3.7 million—the original purchase price—plus damages for lost future profits and other consequential losses, enforceable against the former directors' personal private companies. This judgment underscored director accountability for cybersecurity shortcomings but was limited to contractual misrepresentation rather than broader or statutory violations.

Refusal to Disclose Full Details

DigiNotar delayed public acknowledgment of the for over a month after detecting suspicious activity, with evidence of compromise traced to mid-June 2011, and specific validation of rogue certificates from Iranian IP addresses occurring between July 19 and July 28, 2011. The company failed to notify affected parties, including customers, browser vendors, or authorities, during this period, prioritizing internal handling over transparency despite the potential for widespread man-in-the-middle attacks. This omission exacerbated risks to users, particularly Iranian dissidents targeted by the intrusion, as fraudulent certificates enabled of secure communications without immediate detection. Upon forced disclosure on August 30, 2011—prompted by Mozilla's public alert about a rogue certificate—DigiNotar issued a statement minimizing the incident, asserting compromise of only one root certificate authority server and issuance of a single fraudulent certificate for google.com. The Fox-IT interim forensic report, released shortly thereafter on September 2, 2011, contradicted this by confirming multiple server compromises and issuance of hundreds of rogue certificates across domains like , CIA, and . Full details from the comprehensive investigation, completed in early 2012, revealed attackers had generated 531 unauthorized certificates for over 70 domains, with network access spanning approximately five weeks and evidence of , yet DigiNotar had not preserved complete logs or fully cooperated in early remediation. Critics, including cybersecurity experts and regulatory bodies, condemned this phased and incomplete disclosure as negligent, arguing it hindered timely revocation of certificates and allowed continued exploitation, particularly in high-stakes environments like Iranian Gmail access for 300,000 users. In the bankruptcy proceedings initiated September 20, 2011, parent company Vasco Data Security's filings provided only interim summaries, citing ongoing probes as rationale for limited technical revelations, which further obscured root causes like inadequate segmentation and weak access controls. Such reticence, while potentially shielding proprietary information, perpetuated uncertainty about the breach's full scope and prevented broader learning until analyses surfaced.

Broader Impact and Legacy

Reforms in Certificate Authority Standards

The DigiNotar breach in 2011 exposed vulnerabilities in the (PKI), prompting the to approve the Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates on December 14, 2011. These requirements established mandatory minimum standards for certificate authorities (CAs), including for issuance processes, domain validation procedures, and regular security audits to verify compliance. The guidelines aimed to mitigate risks of unauthorized certificate issuance by enforcing consistent validation and lifecycle management practices across CAs, with non-compliance leading to potential distrust by browsers. A more structural reform emerged with , a logging system designed to publicly record all publicly trusted TLS certificates, enabling detection of misissued or rogue certificates through verifiable append-only logs. Proposed by engineers in 2013, CT was directly motivated by the DigiNotar compromise and similar incidents, where undetected fake certificates enabled man-in-the-middle attacks. By 2018, major browsers like and mandated CT compliance for extended validation certificates, requiring CAs to submit issuances to independent logs for monitoring and auditing by relying parties. These standards also influenced enhanced auditing protocols, with the mandating annual WebTrust audits for and provisions for rapid of trust in compromised roots, as demonstrated by coordinated browser actions post-DigiNotar. Over time, reforms extended to shorter certificate validity periods—reduced from up to 10 years pre-2011 to a maximum of 398 days by —to limit the impact of breaches, though initial post-DigiNotar focus remained on issuance controls and transparency.

Lessons for Cybersecurity and PKI

The DigiNotar intrusion revealed profound vulnerabilities in (CA) operations, where attackers exploited weak and outdated software to compromise all eight CA servers by early July 2011, enabling the issuance of 531 rogue certificates without detection until July 19. This demonstrated that even segmented environments fail without rigorous enforcement of access controls and timely patching, as intruders used tunneling and backdoors to move laterally from DMZ web servers into secure CA networks. In PKI systems, such compromises undermine the foundational trust model, allowing man-in-the-middle attacks on high-value targets like services, which affected approximately 300,000 users primarily in via DNS cache poisoning. Critical lessons emphasize proactive defense over reactive audits, as DigiNotar's WebTrust did not prevent the due to insufficient intrusion detection and log measures. CAs must implement tamper-resistant on isolated, air-gapped systems and deploy continuous for anomalies, such as unauthorized requests or server access, to enable rapid containment—failures here allowed attackers to tamper with logs and persist undetected for over a month. Dual controls, task separation, and forensic-ready incident response plans are essential to counter human errors in and credential handling, reducing the risk of insider-enabled escalations. The incident catalyzed reforms in CA standards, accelerating the adoption of () protocols, which require public logging of all issued certificates to allow independent verification and early detection of rogues, addressing the opacity that masked DigiNotar's fraud. Browser vendors and the subsequently tightened audit rigor, timelines, and distrust mechanisms for non-compliant CAs, underscoring that PKI resilience demands diversified trust anchors and multi-layered validation beyond cryptographic signatures alone. These changes highlight cybersecurity's causal reliance on systemic redundancy: no single CA should hold unchecked authority, as breaches propagate trust erosion across interconnected infrastructures.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Black Tulip - Rotterdam Security Labs
    Aug 13, 2012 · DigiNotar B.V. was founded as a privately-owned notarial collaboration in 1998. DigiNotar provided digital certificate services as a Trusted ...
  2. [2]
    Hacker Forces DigiNotar Into Bankruptcy - SecurityWeek
    Sep 20, 2011 · DigiNotar in the first six months of 2011 generated less than 100,000 Euro in revenue from its SSL and EVSSL business. The Court appointed a ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Operation Black Tulip: Certificate authorities lose authority - ENISA
    We see three major issues: 1. No immediate incident reporting: DigiNotar did not immediately report the cyber-attack to customers or government authorities, ...
  4. [4]
    (PDF) Black Tulip Report of the investigation into the DigiNotar ...
    The interim report on the breach of the DigiNotar Certificate Authority was published6. DigiNotar formally reports the intrusion to the police. 14-Sep-2011.
  5. [5]
    [PDF] DigiNotar: Dissecting the First Dutch Digital Disaster
    Sep 2, 2011 · DigiNotar, a Certificate Authority. (CA), had been electronically 'broken into' and as a result intruders had managed to generate falsified ...
  6. [6]
    DigiNotar Removal Follow Up - Mozilla Security Blog
    Sep 2, 2011 · DigiNotar issues certificates as part of the Dutch government's PKIoverheid (PKIgovernment) program. These certificates are issued from a ...Missing: establishment | Show results with:establishment
  7. [7]
    DigiNotar (2011) - International cyber law: interactive toolkit
    Sep 17, 2021 · Date, June 17, 2011. DigiNotar detected an intrusion into its Certificate Authority infrastructures on 19 July 2011.
  8. [8]
    Emphasizing Security Best Practices; the Rise and Fall of Diginotar
    Jul 13, 2022 · On July 19, 2011, Diginotar issued a press release acknowledging that a hacker had managed to access its CA systems and issue a number of fake ...
  9. [9]
    VASCO Press Release - SEC.gov
    DigiNotar, founded in 1998, is a privately-owned company with a customer base existing primarily of citizens, government institutions and other professional ...
  10. [10]
    The DigiNotar Hack, Black Tulips, Rogue Certificates and what You ...
    Sep 7, 2011 · On August 30, 2011, DigiNotar/VASCO reported that DigiNotar ... founder and CEO J.R. Prins and released on Sept. 5th, 2011, found ...
  11. [11]
    VASCO Data Security Announces the Acquisition of DigiNotar B.V.
    Jan 10, 2011 · VASCO acquired DigiNotar in stock and asset purchase for aggregated cash consideration of Euro 10.0 million ($ 12.9 million using the exchange ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  12. [12]
    VASCO Data Security International, Inc. - EDGAR Online
    Jan 10, 2011 · VASCO Press Release dated January 10, 2011 announcing the DigiNotar acquisition. VASCO Media Alert dated January 10, 2011 announcing ...
  13. [13]
    VASCO Acquires DigiNotar in Authentication Play - eWeek
    Jan 10, 2011 · Vasco Data Security International announced today it has acquired Internet trust services specialist DigiNotar. The deal was completed for $12.9 million (USD).Missing: details | Show results with:details
  14. [14]
    VASCO: Losses from DigiNotar Bankruptcy Under $5 Million
    Oct 4, 2011 · The revenue generated for VASCO, who acquired DigiNotar for $12.9 million in January 2011, was minimal. DigiNotar in the first six months of ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  15. [15]
    How the 2011 hack of DigiNotar changed the internet's infrastructure.
    Dec 21, 2016 · Within a month, DigiNotar had been taken over by the Dutch government. Not long after that, it declared bankruptcy and dissolved. Cybersecurity ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  16. [16]
    Rogue web certificate could have been used to attack Iran dissidents
    Aug 30, 2011 · Security researchers are warning a web certificate is being used that could let hackers steal passwords and data from apparently secure connections to Google ...Missing: intrusion | Show results with:intrusion<|control11|><|separator|>
  17. [17]
    DigiNotar, You are the Weakest Link, Good Bye! - Darknet Diaries
    It's a Dutch-based company and they started out in 1998 doing notarizations in Netherlands. Eventually they became a respectable CA. In fact, the Dutch ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Interim Report - Bits of Freedom
    Interim Report. September 5, 2011. DigiNotar Certificate Authority breach. “Operation Black Tulip”. Page 2. PUBLIC. 2. Fox-IT BV. Olof Palmestraat 6.
  19. [19]
    Interim Report - SEC.gov
    Sep 5, 2011 · This false certificate had been issued by DigiNotar B.V. and was revoked 1 that same evening. On the morning of the following Tuesday, Fox-IT ...
  20. [20]
    DigiNotar certificate authority breach: Why it matters
    Sep 7, 2011 · Also, a fraudulent certificate issued for google.com on 10 July was used in Iran until 29 August, when it was finally revoked.Missing: exploitation impact<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Iranian Man-in-the-Middle Attack Against Google Demonstrates ...
    Someone has launched a man-in-the-middle attack against Iranian Google users, silently intercepting everything from email to search results and possibly ...Missing: hack | Show results with:hack
  22. [22]
    Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians - BBC News
    Sep 5, 2011 · Hundreds of bogus certificates are thought to have been generated following a hack on Netherlands-based DigiNotar. The company is owned by US ...<|separator|>
  23. [23]
    DigiNotar SSL certificate hack amounts to cyberwar, says expert
    Sep 5, 2011 · A handful of Iranian users of Google's popular email service are known to have been affected by the faked certificates, which would allow a "man ...
  24. [24]
    DigiNotar Hack Highlights the Critical Failures of our SSL Web ...
    Sep 6, 2011 · DigiNotar is no ordinary company, and this was no ordinary hack. DigiNotar is one of the “certificate authorities” that has been entrusted ...<|separator|>
  25. [25]
    DigiNotar Files for Bankruptcy in Wake of Devastating Hack - WIRED
    Sep 20, 2011 · A Dutch certificate authority that suffered a major hack attack this summer has been unable to recover from the blow and filed for bankruptcy this week.
  26. [26]
    Fraudulent *.google.com Certificate - Mozilla Security Blog
    Aug 29, 2011 · DigiNotar is a wholly owned subsidiary of VASCO. On July 19th 2011, DigiNotar detected an intrusion into its Certificate Authority (CA) ...
  27. [27]
    Microsoft Security Advisory 2607712
    Microsoft is aware of active attacks using at least one fraudulent digital certificate issued by DigiNotar, a certification authority.
  28. [28]
    Microsoft Releases Security Advisory 2607712
    Aug 29, 2011 · Web sites with certificates issued by DigiNotar will no longer be trusted by Windows Vista and above. This protection is automatic and no ...
  29. [29]
    The DigiNotar Debacle, and what you should do about it - Tor Blog
    Sep 1, 2011 · All Tor Browser Bundles have been updated to Firefox 6 with a patch to stop trusting the offending CA, and users are encouraged to upgrade.
  30. [30]
    Hacking in the Netherlands Took Aim at Internet Giants
    Sep 5, 2011 · The Dutch government took over management of DigiNotar, a subsidiary of Vasco Inc., which is based in Chicago, but kept the Web sites operating ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  31. [31]
    More on Microsoft's response to the DigiNotar compromise
    Sep 4, 2011 · At the explicit request of the Dutch government, Microsoft will delay deployment of this update in the Netherlands for one week to give the ...
  32. [32]
    Diginotar failliet verklaard | Tech | NU.nl
    Sep 20, 2011 · HAARLEM - Het bedrijf Diginotar is dinsdag failliet verklaard. Dat heeft het moederbedrijf Vasco Data Security bekendgemaakt.Missing: datum details
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Operation Black tulip: Certificate authorities loose authority - FIRST.org
    Jun 19, 2012 · o “Diginotar earned around 100.000 euros from its certificate business in the first half of 2011. ” o Can these small trusted parties withstand ...
  34. [34]
    DigiNotar certificate authority goes bankrupt - Network World
    Sep 20, 2011 · The theft of SSL certificates from Dutch certificate authority DigiNotar so undermined trust in the company that it has gone bankrupt.Missing: repercussions | Show results with:repercussions
  35. [35]
    DigiNotar Certificate Authority Breach Crashes e-Government in the ...
    Sep 9, 2011 · For all intents and purposes, DigiNotar's CA operation was now out of business. So much for VASCO's claim of the breach having little material ...
  36. [36]
    ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2014:4888, Rechtbank Amsterdam, C ... - Uitspraken
    Aug 7, 2014 · Op dezelfde datum heeft Vasco van DigiNotar ... DigiNotar haar eigen faillissement aangevraagd en op 20 september 2011 is DigiNotar failliet ...
  37. [37]
    Claim in zaak-Diginotar toegewezen - NOS
    Aug 8, 2014 · De voormalige eigenaren van Diginotar, een bedrijf dat veiligheidscertificaten afgaf voor websites, moeten een schadevergoeding betalen aan ...
  38. [38]
    Vasco krijgt aankoopsom Diginotar terug - Computable.nl
    Aug 11, 2014 · Op 10 januari 2011 werden alle aandelen in Diginotar door Diginotar ... schadevergoeding, onder meer wegens derving van toekomstige winsten en ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] “Cyber-risk and Director's Liability: Exploring the Dutch Legal ... - http
    Nov 6, 2019 · Due to the lack of this kind of case law, the fourth sub-question has been. 35 However, there is one exception: the DigiNotar case. In this ...
  40. [40]
    Verkoper DigiNotar aansprakelijk voor schade koper door hack
    Aug 13, 2014 · ... DigiNotar een schadevergoeding moet betalen aan Vasco. In 2011 betaalde Vasco 3,7 miljoen euro voor de aandelen van DigiNotar (de ...
  41. [41]
    Dutch Officials Widen Inquiry Into Hacking - The New York Times
    Sep 6, 2011 · The Fox-IT report said that DigiNotar discovered 333 fraudulent “rogue certificates” circulating from July 19 to July 28, many of which were ...Missing: cooperation | Show results with:cooperation
  42. [42]
    CA/Browser Forum issues best practices for SSL/TLS certificates
    Dec 19, 2011 · Dutch government revokes DigiNotar's CA root certificates · 26 September 2011 ; Future of SSL in doubt? Researcher Marlinspike unveils alternative ...
  43. [43]
    Certificate Transparency - Security - MDN Web Docs - Mozilla
    May 5, 2025 · Certificate transparency initially came about in 2013 against a backdrop of CA compromises (DigiNotar breach in 2011), questionable decisions ( ...
  44. [44]
    Certificate Transparency - Communications of the ACM
    Oct 1, 2014 · The certificate had been issued by a Dutch certificate authority (CA) known as DigiNotar, a subsidiary of VASCO Data Security International.
  45. [45]
    Community - Certificate Transparency
    Certificate Transparency was a response to the 2011 attack on DigiNotar and other Certificate Authorities. These attacks showed that the lack of ...
  46. [46]
    What is CA/B Forum? - Encryption Consulting
    Nov 15, 2024 · For instance, after the DigiNotar breach in 2011, which compromised its certificate issuance system, the Forum introduced stricter ...
  47. [47]
    Latest Baseline Requirements | CA/Browser Forum
    This document describes an integrated set of technologies, protocols, identity-proofing, lifecycle management, and auditing requirementsBaseline · Certificate Contents · FAQ for Baseline... · About the Baseline...Missing: DigiNotar 2011<|separator|>
  48. [48]
    Lessons Learned from DigiNotar, Comodo and RSA Breaches
    Nov 17, 2011 · How DigiNotar, Comodo and RSA Breaches occurred and the lessons we can learn from them. All enterprises need to look at their highest-value ...<|separator|>
  49. [49]
    What is the Status of Certificate Transparency (CT) Support for Logs ...
    Beginning Feb. 2018 DigiCert started submitting all newly issued and publicly trusted TLS/SSL certificates to Certificate Transparency (CT) logs by default.