Live data from Hacker News

SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

chrislockard.net

271–280 of 305 posts

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#271
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't take this as a snarky comment, but that sounds quite literally as "skill issue". Not in you personally, but in the environment you work in. > PKI isn’t a solved problem. PKI is largely a solved issue nowadays. Software like Vault from hashicorp (it's FIPS compliant, too: https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/docs/enterprise/fips ) let you create a cryptographically-strong CA and build the automation you need. I…

> but that sounds quite literally as "skill issue". Not in you personally, but in the environment you work in. You have no idea the environment they work in. The "skill issue" here is you thinking your basic knowledge of Vault matters. > Software like Vault from hashicorp (it's FIPS compliant, too: https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/docs/enterprise/fips ) let you create a cryptographically-strong CA and build the…

> You have no idea the environment they work in. The "skill issue" here is you thinking your basic knowledge of Vault matters.

I've deployed Vault both at home and in two different companies, doing anything from pki, mutual-tls, secret storage and other stuff.

> > Software like Vault from hashicorp (it's FIPS compliant, too: https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/docs/enterprise/fips) let you create a cryptographically-strong CA and build the automation you need.

> They didn't tell you their needs, but you're convinced this vendor product solves it.

It was an example from the ecosystem of available tools but in general yes, Vault can do that. Mentioning FIPS compliance was about letting you know that the software can be used also in governative environments. It's not just a "homelab toy".

> Are you a non-technical CTO by chance?

Senior cloud engineer here. Worked anywhere from not-so-small companies (250 people, 100 engineers) to faangs (tens of thousands of engineers).

> > there are equivalents for mac os and gnu/linux i guess

> You guess? I'm sensing a skill issue.

You're attacking me on a personal level because you can't argue otherwise. That's a common logical fallacy ("Ad Hominem" - https://www.britannica.com/topic/ad-hominem). You basically have skill issue at debating =)

> Why would you say it's solved for their environment, "I guess??"

When you account Windows, Mac OS and Linux you're accounting for pretty much the totality of the desktop computing landscape. The last two macbooks I had for work came with the mac os equivalent of group policies with certificates installed etc etc. Enterprise-tier Linux distributions can do that as well (eg: Red Hat Enterprise Linux).

> I'm sensing you work in a low skill environment if you think "home lab trivial" translates to enterprise and defense.

Again, worked anywhere from companies with 250 people to FAANGs. You have skill issue at sensing, it seems.

To get back to the point: homelab "triviality". In a way, yes. Large enterprises and even more defense can spend all the money not just for software but even for consulting from various company that can bring the skills to implement and maintain all the services that are needed, and train your people at that. Things become non trivial not on the base of technical issue, but on the base of organizational issues...

If we talk government and defense... Do you know the US government has dedicated cloud regions (eg: https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/)? Do you really think that cloud providers offer those services at loss? Do you really think a few vault enterprise licenses are the issue there?

And by the way, Vault is just an example of one of the possible solutions. It was meant to be an example but you clearly missed the point.

> > Hence, if a large organization is not able to implement that, the issue is in the organization, not in the technology.

> Absolutely meaningless statement.

I think it's very meaningful.

It's not 1995, cryptography isn't arcane anymore. We had hardware crypto acceleration in cpu since at least 2010 (AES-NI). The tooling is well established on both servers and clients. The skills are on the market ready to be hired (either via employment or via contracting).

The issue is not technical in nature.

Oh and by the way: I've worked closely with engineers working for the US government. I wasn't close to the US government (because I am not an US citizen) but they were. They were "close enough" that they had to work in a SCIF and could only interact with me via phone. The systems they were working on... Those systems had their own private CA (among other things).

It's feasible. It's not a technical issue. If it's not done then it's an organizational issue.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#272
"File-based domain validation was less secure; one dangling DNS record or webserver mis-configuration is all it takes to hijack a certificate.

The remaining domain control validation (DCV) methods for my organization have been reduced to two options: DNS TXT records and email-based validation.

DNS validation is a decent and secure option in an organization where DNS management access is tightly controlled.

A recent change aims to thwart BGP hijacking and DNS spoofing attacks.

Indeed, there are CA consulting services that will offer to "bring PKI and DNS together to validate domain ownership and issue certificates without manual DNS record updates"."

This CA-based, i.e., third-party-based, "Web PKI" appears to depend heavily on the ICANN DNS. But in ICANN DNS the authoritative nameservers are not required to accept encrypted queries or send encrypted responses

In this ICANN DNS upon which "Web PKI" depends, specifically the system of authoritative nameservers, there is no encryption, only authentication, and it is not mandatory for all nameservers. Even more, the setup and maintenance of this authentication system for the data^1 served by these nameservers (DNSSEC) is as difficult if not more than the CA-issued certificates system for networked computers that the blog post is complaining about^2

1. Nevermind the authentication of the computers serving the zone data

2. https://ianix.com/pub/dnssec-outages.html

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly in the CA/B member companies is going to demand that the 47-day lifetime be reversed, and why are they going to do that? If an org is tech-forward enough to have bothered setting up HTTPS for internal use cases on their own initiative, just because it was good for security, then they're not going to have major problems adapting to the 47-day lifetime. The orgs that will struggle to deal with this are the…

I think when Sundar and Satya start hearing about how their customers are losing billions of dollars because of some random people at their company called "certificate trust program leads" or whatever, there is going to be a lot of questions how those decisions got made and how to get them un-made. Most of the other forum members either won't oppose longer lifetimes (every cert vendor would be happy) or will bow to t…

None of this will happen. Saying this as the named endorser for SC-081.

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#274
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't take this as a snarky comment, but that sounds quite literally as "skill issue". Not in you personally, but in the environment you work in. > PKI isn’t a solved problem. PKI is largely a solved issue nowadays. Software like Vault from hashicorp (it's FIPS compliant, too: https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/docs/enterprise/fips ) let you create a cryptographically-strong CA and build the automation you need. I…

> It's been out for years now, integrating the root CA shouldn't be much of an issue via group policies (in windows, there are equivalents for mac os and gnu/linux i guess). How do you do this on a proprietary device from the late 90s that runs a WindRiver VXWorks RTOS with 1 MB of SRAM? The updated (full color!) Panelview HMI is running Windows CE 6.0, so it's perhaps more likely to be compatible, but I don't think…

> How do you do this on a proprietary device from the late 90s that runs a WindRiver VXWorks RTOS with 1 MB of SRAM?

You weight the cost of incurring in that thing getting hacked against the cost of that thing being rebuilt on modern hardware with modern technologies and enough processing power to do TLS.

Then you pick the "rebuild route". Easy.

Anyway, it's crazy how on this forum it goes from "REWRITE EVERYTHING IN RUST!!! ANYTHING THAT'S NOT RUST IS INHERENTLY UNSAFE" to the complete opposite of "why doesn't anybody think of the poor WindRiver VXWorks RTOS!!".

> Sure, adding a cert to the SCADA server is trivial, it runs Windows Server and has a NIC that can access the Internet, but on the other NIC...there's a menagerie of 30 years of industrial oddities.

Not gonna lie, all i hear is "i'm annoyed i was able to ignore the problem for 30 years but now i have to actually fix it".

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#275
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frankly ridiculous is that the big softwares like Nginx and Apache don't deal with this on their own. I've been letting Caddy (my http host of choice) deal with TLS for me for _ages_ now. I don't have to think about anything, I don't have to setup automation. I just... configure my caddy to host my website on https://my.domain.com and it just fetches the TLS for me, renews it when necessary, and uses it as nec…

Apache has had mod_md since 2018 https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_md.html

nginx gained that recently: https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_acme_module.html

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#276
post #174
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an attempt doing it differently by CRL but it turns out certificate revoking is not feasible in practice on web scale. Now they are doing next plausible solution. Seems like 47 days is something they found out by let’s encrypt experience estimating load by current renewals but that last part I am just imagining.

CRL distribution at web scale is now possible thanks to work by John Schanck at Mozilla https://hacks.mozilla.org/2025/08/crlite-fast-private-and-co... But CRL sizes are also partly controlled by expiry time, shorter lifetimes produce smaller CRLs.

Oh wow that’s really fresh. I was still stuck on cascade bloom filers

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#277
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when Sundar and Satya start hearing about how their customers are losing billions of dollars because of some random people at their company called "certificate trust program leads" or whatever, there is going to be a lot of questions how those decisions got made and how to get them un-made. Most of the other forum members either won't oppose longer lifetimes (every cert vendor would be happy) or will bow to t…

None of this will happen. Saying this as the named endorser for SC-081.

I really would like to share with you that what you endorsed will cause deaths. Deaths never attributed directly, sure. But the damage to the stability of the Internet of this is immense, and the impact that will have on individual lives virtually unpredictable in millions of complicated ways.

And I really hope you are wrong that it will not get reversed. (I hope I am wrong about the above, but I doubt it.)

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you propose things should work instead?

I propose a system like SSH fingerprints. Then anybody can maintain a database of "known fingerprints", and a web-of-trust can be established without depending on a centeral-point-of-censorship. Fuck CA's. They're not and never have been trustworthy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcitium#Certificate_hacking https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/06/chrome-boots-2-cert... https:/…

How would you propose to overcome the usability problems that have heretofore prevented normal users from adopting web-of-trust?

Re: SSL certificate requirements are becoming obnoxious

#280
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this will happen. Saying this as the named endorser for SC-081.

I really would like to share with you that what you endorsed will cause deaths . Deaths never attributed directly, sure. But the damage to the stability of the Internet of this is immense, and the impact that will have on individual lives virtually unpredictable in millions of complicated ways. And I really hope you are wrong that it will not get reversed. (I hope I am wrong about the above, but I doubt it.)

Do you have an order-of-magnitude estimate of how many deaths?
Post reply on HN