Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

tacticalsecret.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

#41

Post by [deleted] »

IgorPartola wrote: post #19
jonlucc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were free options. I think the biggest benefits to Let's Encrypt are the EFF's clout and the simplicity.

I used to use Wossl and StartSSL before for lots of little personal projects. I recently switched everything over to LE. I am looking forward to switching other projects to it too, such as ones for clients where we had to pay for wildcard certs in the past. Not having to mark the calendar to renew certs every year is going to be really nice. Incidentally, does anyone have a good way to integrate LE with EC2's load ba…

[deleted]

Re: Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

#42

Post by jchomali »

I started using Let's Encrypt for a new app backend that I am building. I find very useful its free service as it give developers the opportunity to use secure servers to keep users privacy and server's security for free

Re: Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

#45

Post by _ak »

pfg wrote: post #21
toyg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there were not. Free options meant untrusted certificates or short-lived certificates that could not be renewed. LE made SSL free, trusted and long-term. You could have made it twice as hard to do the initial setup and people would have jumped at the opportunity regardless.

StartSSL and WoSign have been offering free, publicly trusted certificates with one year lifetimes (and the ability to renew for free) for quite some time. The former doesn't allow commercial usage, while the latter operates in China. That's probably why it wasn't an option for a lot of people. (That, and the terrible UX at least in StartSSL's case.)

StartSSL isn't free. They charge for certificate revocation.

Re: Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

#46

Post by tootie »

diafygi wrote: post #7
tootie wrote: post #5

I've used them a bunch. We host a lot of internal-facing utilities that are low-profile, but occasionally hosting sensitive data. In the past I couldn't convince managers to spend money on certs even if the cost of someone stumbling on these sites could be very high and certs are cheap. Now I don't even have to ask.

Keep in mind that Let's Encrypt publishes a searchable list of all domains issued. https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25&iCAID=7395

Why?

Re: Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

#48

Post by pfg »

tootie wrote: post #46
diafygi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that Let's Encrypt publishes a searchable list of all domains issued. https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25&iCAID=7395

Why?

FWIW, keeping internal hostnames private might be part of a security-by-obscurity strategy.

Re: Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

#49

Post by technion »

tootie wrote: post #46
diafygi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that Let's Encrypt publishes a searchable list of all domains issued. https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25&iCAID=7395

Why?

They are following that Certificate transparency standard that, eventually, everyone will need to follow.

It's already a requirement for anyone issuing EV certificates.

Note crt.sh is actually a Comodo website, for interrogating the CT logs.

Re: Early Impacts of Let's Encrypt

#50

Post by bogus- »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25
yoha wrote: post #12

For anyone struggling with creating Let's Encrypt certificates (or just as lazy as I am), try out https://gethttpsforfree.com/ .

The CLI version of the LE client is pretty simple to use. Literally one command line.

Yes, it's almost too convenient. Lazy me is still slightly miffed that auto nginx is not fully supported, however.
Post reply on HN