Live data from Hacker News

Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

groups.google.com

261–270 of 329 posts

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#261
post #134

SYMC is at an all time high, and every one of their EV certificate customers is about to start talking to different security vendors. The Jan18, Jan19 near ATM puts are quite reasonably priced.

Crazy! A third of SYMC's revenue might be going POOF! and the market is just shrugging?

They'll all be caught by surprise and lose their shirts when Symantec releases their financials next quarter and the stock tanks. The market is full of ignorant people.

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#262

> All Symantec issued certificates. GeoTrust and Thawte are CAs operated by Symantec, simply afforded different branding. >While this list may need to be updated for some recently created roots, https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/net/... may accurately capture the state of impact Damn. There goes my certificate (Rapidssl). Anybody know what are the remaining, trustworthy certificate issuers ? No…

DigiCert

https://www.digicert.com/

Great company and good people involved in CA/B Forum who advocate on behalf of user security. They'll never pull some of the nonsense the other CA's attempt and I can't recommend them enough.

edit: to add, DigiCert were one of the only CA's to support Google's motion to reduce max cert validity period to 12 months, which didn't pass[0]

DigiCert were also the CA that helped us get Tor onion addresses validated which eventually became a standard

[0] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009374.ht...

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#263
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been asked about it by "enterprise"-y clients. It's on the checklist of things companies ask about when assessing third-party services.

Those are not users. Those are people who have read up about SSL certificates and have bought in to the hype.

most business is B2B, I don't see how they're not users.

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#266

Not much focus in the comments has been put on the 9-month certificate validity, but it seems like that is going to be almost as big a punishment for Symantec as the deprecation. Because dealing with SSL is so painful for some large corporates, being told that you have to go from a 3 year renewal schedule to a 9 month one would be enough to cause many to go looking elsewhere.

Since certificate revocation is pretty much unworkable, reducing the maximum lifetime of certificates is probably a good thing for security in general.

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#267
post #225
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be being a bit dense, but if your client device contains a root that goes off-reservation, how does it ever receive a revocation notice? Doesn't everything that chains to that root via a valid chain still get trusted? Side note: Are payment systems required to link to revalidate their roots at any regular intervals?

> I may be being a bit dense, but if your client device contains a root that goes off-reservation, how does it ever receive a revocation notice? Doesn't everything that chains to that root via a valid chain still get trusted? Yes, if a client isn't receiving root store updates it will continue to trust certificates chaining to the off-reservation root. This is why taking previously-trusted roots off-reservation is ba…

Wow, the two of those combined with embedded systems with extended lifecycles seem like a recipe for disaster.

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#268
Why not immediately begin treating these connections as plain HTTP? Don't show the padlock or "Secure".

Don't fail the connection, so people will still be able to use the site, but don't present it as secure.

This would be a stronger action than treating EV certs as non-EV, which only a few geeks will notice. Or reducing the maximum age of certificates.

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#269

If anyone here hasn't realised, Symantec bought Verisign back in 2010 - who own many brand names, like GeoTrust, Equifax, Thawte etc. You can see a list of their roots certs here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/net/... In case you missed it at the bottom: > From Mozilla Firefox’s Telemetry, we know that Symantec issued certificates are responsible for 42% of certificate validations

Symantec bought Verisign's authentication business, still two different companies.

GeoTrust was started from buying Equifax's security business. Symantec bought GeoTrust. Symantec doesn't own the Equifax brand or company.

Re: Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symantec-Issued Certificates

#270
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we spawn our servers and scale them up and down. We terminate ssl internally to our applications which are on Docker. Letsencrypt is painful on docker. I dont mind paying 40$ per year for a wildcard ssl certificate.

You can get a Let's Encrypt certificate manually; you don't have to automate it. There are a few options, including https://gethttpsforfree.com/ by 'diafygi, which involves running some openssl commands and pasting public keys and signatures into the web form (which in turn send API requests to Let's Encrypt). Or you can find or build a client yourself. The only hard part is you'll have to find a way to prove ownersh…

You think it is the same to setup renewal for Letsencrypt and a vanilla cert, but it's not.

We buy 3 year wildcard certs - Rapidssl was about 80$. From about a month before renewal, they start sending you emails and make sure you don't forget.

Letsencrypt is a good idea for larger setups with dedicated devops. For a start-up, it's the exact same argument as Gitlab vs Github.

Post reply on HN