Live data from Hacker News

SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

chrislockard.net

11–20 of 305 posts

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#11

I do not think PKI will survive the 47 day change. I am not sure the CAB will survive that change. It seems extremely apparent the people who made the decision have neither any relevant experience in IT nor any practical understanding of security, and I think they've finally flown too close to the sun. Automated renewal is... probably about a decade or two from being supported well enough to be an actual answer. In o…

>Automated renewal is... probably about a decade or two from being supported well enough to be an actual answer.

???

All my servers use certbot and it works fine. There's also no shortage of SaaS/PaaS that offer free ssl with their service, and presumably they've got that automated as well.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#12
I've spent 15+ minutes searching, and the digicert (linked to in the article), and other cert providers all reference a vote on "Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration (MPIC)".

Everywhere I've read, one "must validate domain control using multiple independent network perspectives". EG, multiple points on the internet, for DNS validation.

Yet there is not one place I can find a very specific "this is what this means". What is a "network perspective", searching shows it means "geographical independent regions". What's a region? How big? How far apart from your existing infra qualifies? How is it calculated.

Anyone know? Because apparently none of the bodies know, or wish to tell.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#13
> I am responsible for approving SSL certificates for my company

What does this even mean? Does he check the certificates for typos, or that they have the correct security algorithm or something?

I'm pretty sure such an "approval" could be replaced by an automatic security scanner or even a small shall script

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#14
post #3

I understand OP's frustration, but the alternate view is that mandating better practices is a forcing function for businesses that otherwise don't give a shit about users or their privacy or security. For all the annoyance of SOC2 audits, it sure does make my manager actually spend time and money on following the rules. Without any kind of external pressure I (as a security-minded engineer) would struggle to convince…

Why is a month's expiration better than a year or two years?

Why wouldn't you go with a week or a day? isn't that better than a whole month?

Why isn't it instead just a minute? or a few seconds? Wouldn't that be better?

Why not have certificates dynamically generated constantly and have it so every single request is serviced by a new one and then destroyed after the session is over?

Maybe the problem isn't that certificates expire too soon, maybe the problem is that humans are lazy. Perhaps it's time to go with another method entirely.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#15
The decreasing validity time pushes for the process to be automated, and automation reduces the possible human errors.

Many things need to be run and automated when running stuff, I don't understand what makes SSL certificates special in this.

For a hobbyist, setting up certbot or acme.sh is pretty much fire and forget. For more complex settings well… you already have this complexity to manage and therefore the people managing this complexity.

You'll need to pick a client and approve it, sure, but that's once, and that's true for any tool you already use. (edit: and nginx is getting ACME support, so you might already be using this tool)

It's not the first time I encounter them, but I really don't get the complaints. Sure, the setup may take longer. But the day to day operations are then easier.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#16
With Azure-hosted sites, I find it's significantly easier to have Microsoft perform all certificate management for us. All we do is verify that we own the domain, and then they do all the certificate management for us.

When I saw the 47-day expiration period, it made me wonder if someone is trying to force everyone onto cloud solutions like what Azure provides.

The old geezer in me is disappointed that it's increasingly harder to host a site on a cable modem at home. (But I haven't done that in over two decades.)

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#17
There's two sides to this, if it's not a public service, why should it have a certificate from a public CA? If your risk assessment says that you do not need MPIC, then just don't do that, yourself.

The second side is that if it's so tedious to approve and install, use solutions that require neither. Surely you don't need to have some artisanal certificate installation process that involves a human if you already admit that stricter issuance reduces no risk of yours. Thus, simplify your processes.

There are automated solutions to pretty much all platforms both free and paid. Nginx has it, I just checked and Apache has a module for this as well. Could the author write a blog post about what's stopping them from adopting these solutions?

In the end I can think of *extremely* few and niche cases where any changes to a computer system are actually (human) time-consuming due to regulatory reasons that at the same time require public trust.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#19
Looking at the changes going on in computing regarding the need for constantly updating certificates for a website, verified identity to develop mobile apps etc. it's clear there is a background push for control of everything such that when things are considered problems they can promptly be cut off from everything all at once.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#20
post #11

I do not think PKI will survive the 47 day change. I am not sure the CAB will survive that change. It seems extremely apparent the people who made the decision have neither any relevant experience in IT nor any practical understanding of security, and I think they've finally flown too close to the sun. Automated renewal is... probably about a decade or two from being supported well enough to be an actual answer. In o…

>Automated renewal is... probably about a decade or two from being supported well enough to be an actual answer. ??? All my servers use certbot and it works fine. There's also no shortage of SaaS/PaaS that offer free ssl with their service, and presumably they've got that automated as well.

Out of about three dozen places I need a certificate, I believe one recently added support for ACME. Tell me you aren't in enterprise IT without telling me you aren't in enterprise IT. ;)

It may help you to understand that it is not an assumption any given product even supports HTTPS well in the first place, and a lot of vendors look at you weird when you express that you intend to enable it. One piece of software requires rerunning the installer to change the certificate.

Yeah, there are also some very expensive vendors out there to manage this for big companies with big dollars.

Post reply on HN