First, congrats, this is great news! There's a lot of use cases out there that require a wildcard cert or work far better with them. > It is our intent to transition all clients and subscribers to ACMEv2, though we have not set an end-of-life date for our ACMEv1 API yet. Please don't do this. It will break millions of sites needlessly. Most installations of lets encrypt plugins aren't going to auto update to v2. A lo…
ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
11–20 of 321 posts
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#12Great news, but interesting to see that they still recommend securing individual domain names. I imagine this is for security purposes?
Key compromise for a single site is much less disruptive than losing control of a key that protects hundreds or thousands of sites. Generally you want to keep your scope smaller, it's safer. Rather than blanket-verify everything. Wildcards also makes it more difficult for you to see what of your names is going through CT logs.
Caddy will support wildcard certificates, but most users will not need them, because already Caddy can obtain certificates "on demand" - dynamically, during the TLS handshake. Again, the main reason for using wildcards at this point would be to reduce pressure against LE rate limits.
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#13First, congrats, this is great news! There's a lot of use cases out there that require a wildcard cert or work far better with them. > It is our intent to transition all clients and subscribers to ACMEv2, though we have not set an end-of-life date for our ACMEv1 API yet. Please don't do this. It will break millions of sites needlessly. Most installations of lets encrypt plugins aren't going to auto update to v2. A lo…
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#14The amount of money I've paid for this... I recon some of these providers are going under soon?
I really hope so.
The cost to providers is exactly the same for a wildcard and a standard certificate, and yet they costs hundreds of dollars. It's unbelievable it's lasted this long
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#15First, congrats, this is great news! There's a lot of use cases out there that require a wildcard cert or work far better with them. > It is our intent to transition all clients and subscribers to ACMEv2, though we have not set an end-of-life date for our ACMEv1 API yet. Please don't do this. It will break millions of sites needlessly. Most installations of lets encrypt plugins aren't going to auto update to v2. A lo…
As would be the preferable end-of-life date for SSLv3 and HTTP.
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#16Great news, but interesting to see that they still recommend securing individual domain names. I imagine this is for security purposes?
btw, in that scenario, even if the sites all share an IP address, you can use a TCP-level proxy that supports doing the TLS SNI exchange to determine where to send the connection on, so the proxy doesn't need any of the keys and the encryption is end-to-end.
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#17Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#18On the face of it wildcard certs seem easy to implement - just match anything in place of the * - but clearly that's not the case as it took years to complete, anyone mind sharing some of the subtle challenges and complexities involved
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#19Great news, but interesting to see that they still recommend securing individual domain names. I imagine this is for security purposes?
Yeah, I think that if someone hacked your DNS provider, they could add secure-payments.yourbusiness.com and start spamming people with "late payment! enter your credit card!" notices or something. So I guess, make sure you trust your DNS provider if you're using wildcards. Or is there another exploit I'm missing?
Re: ACME v2 and Wildcard Certificate Support is Live
#20DNS providers and domain name registration companies are probably going to get pestered about API access for updating TXT DNS records now... :)