With the tightening of certificate trust, demise of self-signed certificates, etc., is there any remaining way to establish a consumer-oriented HTTPS server on a local network? Thinking of things like routers, printers, and self-hosted IoT devices here. Some of the label printers we support at work have simply atrocious workarounds to get them to work, and I'm wondering if it's the manufacturer's fault or if that use…
It’s a glaring security hole, IMHO. I create such devices and the only way I know is self-signed certs, but the browsers complain a lot about that. Ideally there’d be a way to sign .local domains with browsers handling it while letting people know to verify the identity of their local devices/services and that the identity isn’t verified by https like most sites. The issue lies between the browsers and https system.…
Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
151–160 of 375 posts
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#152With the tightening of certificate trust, demise of self-signed certificates, etc., is there any remaining way to establish a consumer-oriented HTTPS server on a local network? Thinking of things like routers, printers, and self-hosted IoT devices here. Some of the label printers we support at work have simply atrocious workarounds to get them to work, and I'm wondering if it's the manufacturer's fault or if that use…
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buy a domain, create a subdomain for local use, and issue ACME certs with Let's Encrypt every 60 days. If your vendor device or software doesn't support automated certificate rotation, put nginx/haproxy/envoy in front of it.
This won't work either, btw: You'd have to request from Let's Encrypt a new certificate for each individual device . LE has several rate limits that will prevent that from working for anything more than a trivial number of devices: https://letsencrypt.org/docs/rate-limits/ The only way I see how this would work is if you not just purchase a domain but also an internet-facing server and do the renewal and certificate…
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#154Remember the good old time when it was not an almighty cartel of browsers that controlled your internet? This is so an arbitrary decision and so much a pain in the ass. Again, a limited number of people used their corporate interests to decide for the whole world with almost no discussion. The worst is that the "security" argument for this change is quite weak. Yes, we can think that shorter certificates are a little…
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
LE is open standard, any CA can decide to implement it.
The only other CA I know that has this service available is https://www.buypass.com/ssl/products/acme
According to Wikipedia there's several large CA's that already support ACME
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#156This may be good for security, but it is extra burden for small web developers and individuals. Big players will have cert renewals automated. It's possible and free for small players to use letsencrypt, that still takes some time to set up, manage and maintain over time. Without automation, you've got an annual chore to do or your site goes offline. I think some hosts are already starting to offer free and easy SSL…
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#157Remember the good old time when it was not an almighty cartel of browsers that controlled your internet? This is so an arbitrary decision and so much a pain in the ass. Again, a limited number of people used their corporate interests to decide for the whole world with almost no discussion. The worst is that the "security" argument for this change is quite weak. Yes, we can think that shorter certificates are a little…
Yeah those good old times when Comodo was hacked and issued certificates for gmail.com and nobody really cared. Or when some shady CAs sold intermediate certificates in devices so you could man in the middle all your network connections (and everyone else's, too). So bad those times are over and we have this browser cartell enforcing some basic security standards for TLS. Screw them!
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Joe Blogger is not expected to setup a VPS, Joe Blogger is using shared hosting or a blog-as-a-service, and thus leaves worrying about how to implement HTTPS to someone else.
So the death of self-sufficient, independent Joe Blogger espcially if that "someone else" is his hosting provider who doesn't handle Letsencrypt.
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#159Remember the good old time when it was not an almighty cartel of browsers that controlled your internet? This is so an arbitrary decision and so much a pain in the ass. Again, a limited number of people used their corporate interests to decide for the whole world with almost no discussion. The worst is that the "security" argument for this change is quite weak. Yes, we can think that shorter certificates are a little…
Moreover, this didn't come from CA/B anyway, it was rejected there. CA/B agreed the previous 825 day limit, and the 39 month limit before that, but this new rule did not get support at CA/B so Apple imposed it unilaterally (and with some really poor communication but whatever).
Google and Mozilla have just decided that since they wanted this limit, and Apple has effectively imposed it anyway, they might as well go along for the ride.
Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah those good old times when Comodo was hacked and issued certificates for gmail.com and nobody really cared. Or when some shady CAs sold intermediate certificates in devices so you could man in the middle all your network connections (and everyone else's, too). So bad those times are over and we have this browser cartell enforcing some basic security standards for TLS. Screw them!
Shortening the validity duration does not stop any of those issues. It just shortens the duration of a potential attack to one year.
It's an uphill battle but I'm glad browser vendors are fighting it.