Live data from Hacker News

Let's Encrypt is Trusted

letsencrypt.org

191–200 of 318 posts

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#191
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you meant SSL/TLS

can you sign a cert for SSH? I know that you can add the SSH server public key fingerprint as a DNS record and sign an openSSH certificate with your own private CA but are there any public CAs who will sign SSH certs and would the ssh client even trust anything other than a manually added CA?

You could, but SSH is used for actual security, and adding the variable of a third party makes that situation strictly worse. SSH keys are meant to be distributed through some side channel.

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, this means you either have to use a self-signed cert which CloudFlare will not verify at all (meaning it can be MITMed) or use one signed by a trusted CA... which brings you back to square one.

> self-signed cert which CloudFlare will not verify at all. Why would they do that? I never used this feature of CloudFlare, but it would be only logical to require you to upload the cert so they can verify against it in the future.

They only let you do that on the $200 a month business plan

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#193

I truly appreciate the hard work Let's Encrypt is doing. However, this is not free. In return for getting an SSL certificate, your users will need to trust an organization to protect the secrets they share with you and vice versa. This organization has no economic incentive to do good for you or to do harm to you. What happens when this organization is compelled by the TLA to give up the lucky charms, and there is no…

I think there's a misconception here about the CA model.

Let's Encrypt users (in almost every respect) are not more exposed to risks of Let's Encrypt misissuing certificates. (They are more exposed to risks of Let's Encrypt wrongly revoking a certificate, but that creates an availability risk rather than an integrity or confidentiality risk.) In particular, Let's Encrypt never has access to your server's private key or to your TLS session keys. There is no way that Let's Encrypt could take a recorded TLS session and tell somebody how to decrypt it; what we have are signing keys, and all that they ever do is sign things (normally claims about other keys that could be used for other purposes).

Although Let's Encrypt, like any CA, could issue an additional fake certificate which someone who controls your network could use to impersonate you, any site is already exposed to this risk from every CA, whether or not the site uses Let's Encrypt. Let's Encrypt could issue a fake certificate in the name of a site that uses StartSSL or Verisign -- or Verisign or StartSSL could issue a fake certificate in the name of a site that uses Let's Encrypt.

As I've said a number of times in a number of contexts, the people working on the Let's Encrypt project don't think that this model is perfect, and many of us have been involved in expressing concerns about CAs' power in the past. As a result, we're working to limit Let's Encrypt's own power to misissue certificates by participating in the Certificate Transparency system, and hopefully by adopting and encouraging our users to adopt other technologies that will protect them against misbehavior by CAs, including us.

We encourage our users (and non-users) to adopt technologies that would reduce the need to trust us, including HPKP, which lets sites themselves make assertions about what keys they'll use, which browsers will then enforce even if CAs say something different, and Certificate Transparency, which lets people confirm that certificates they encounter in the wild have been publicly disclosed worldwide by the CA that issued them.

If you have other ideas for how CAs can be made less trusted, more transparent, and more accountable, we would love to hear them! And let me express my appreciation for the people who have been working to create the means that we have to do this today.

(If you're not a Let's Encrypt user and want to protect visitors to your site against risk of misissuance of a certificate by Let's Encrypt -- or any other CA! -- you can also adopt CAA and HPKP, to give visitors a browser-side way to enforce your intentions about what certificates they should be accepting.)

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#194
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you meant SSL/TLS

can you sign a cert for SSH? I know that you can add the SSH server public key fingerprint as a DNS record and sign an openSSH certificate with your own private CA but are there any public CAs who will sign SSH certs and would the ssh client even trust anything other than a manually added CA?

Yeah - [Open]SSH supports signing for host and user keys, and you can operate your own CA, and the certificates you issue can encode a signed set of permissions/access controls with them (E.g permit-agent-forwarding, permit-X11-forwarding, certificate life times) this functionality is IMHO vastly underutilised.

OpenSSH certificates are not X509 certificates though, and out of the box SSH servers will not trust any public authority.

Also, AFAIK CA cross-signing, intermediates and other things that are fairly commonplace in X509 land are either not supported or not widely supported in OpenSSH.

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You state "This is not FUD" yet that's exactly what it strikes me as since making a certificate $0 instead of $19 doesn't change anything at all about "the issues that arise from centralized authority in a decentralized economy".

Except that the company charging you $19 is getting $19 to provide a service to you, and their brand depends on that.

I don't think this distinction is especially relevant in this context. Let's Encrypt also has a brand that depends on its integrity, and if you're concerned about attempts to coerce certificate misissuance, they apply at least as strongly to for-profit entities.

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#196
post #148

From a comment on a similar reddit-thread[1]: > So thus beings the transition. EV certs are going to be the only ones that get the "green" chrome in browsers anymore. Sites using standard SSL are going to get the normal no-lock/white treatment. And sites without SSL will get the caution symbol/yellow treatment. I don't like it, but I suspect this is where we're heading. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3pg…

"EV certs are going to be the only ones that get the 'green' chrome in browsers anymore." Are there any facts to back up this claim? Edit: This is what HN looks like in Firefox 38.0.5: http://img4.imagetitan.com/img4/RsbN6Rsn61k2IMN/12/12_l.png Sure, the background color is white, but there's still a padlock icon.

Image not found

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#197
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They provide docker packaging. So it's just as dep-free as Go. ...except needing docker and everything running it in a docker container entails over a simple CLI. Also, it looks like they say "for god's sake don't pip install": Please do not use python setup.py install or ``sudo pip install`. Those mode of operation might corrupt your operating system and is not supported by the Let’s Encrypt team! https://letsencr…

> ....except Windows? Which also doesn't support docker. So the actual problem you have is that you selected an operating system that has zero native support for interpreted languages, and you're mad that they didn't cater their software to you?

I use Ubuntu, but I've been a Windows software developer in the past. I don't immediately discount that platform, because I know a ton of developers run Windows.

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#198
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, to what degree is one defined as being independent? When you have "platinum" sponsors like akamai and cisco, and can take donations through paypal?

They are a separate legal entity, with multiple independent sources of funding and a diverse range of board members[1]. I'm not sure about degrees of independence, but I would say this satisfies my criteria. Are you arguing they aren't really independent of their sponsors? [1] https://letsencrypt.org/isrg/

I wasn't arguing anything just asking a question.

But I will say that, without any numbers, its hard for me to say either way. Clearly, RSA was in independent legal entity, but a $x million dollar check didn't stop them from peddling shoddy crypto… though that's not something surprising to hear in this community.

Re: Let's Encrypt is Trusted

#199
post #166

I'm all for native desktop and mobile applications, but in this case I'd actually love a web app - enter your domain, get certificate. Downloading a tool, reading man page, works out of the box only with apache/nginx - ehhh, seems like a lot of work, considering some comments touting 'user friendliness' compared to StartSSL.

But you need to run something on the server to validate that you've got control of it on your domain. A web app isn't enough.

The better solution is to integrate this tool into various server tools like Apache and Wordpress and in whatever else you might be running with a one-click installer.

Post reply on HN