Live data from Hacker News

Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

chromium.googlesource.com

151–160 of 375 posts

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#151
post #57

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.…

I love this idea. There are enough influential tech people who read HN, can we make this happen please?

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#152
post #57

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…

I've just resigned myself to accepting the fact that I am not the browser vendor's target market anymore and I'll have to keep an older copy of FF around for the sole purpose of accessing devices I own that will never see an update to modern crypto/certificate standards.

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#153
post #103
post #65

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#154

Remember 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…

Corporations think they have to protect people from themselves now because people are now required, even encouraged, to blindly run all remote code they're sent. It's because browsers have become the OS. And now it's standard to metaphorically open every email attachment you receive.

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#155

Earlier 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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Certificate_Manage....

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

#156
post #5

This 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…

It is not much harder to do this every year as opposed to doing this every few years. It’s just an incentive to streamline the process.

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#157
post #146

Remember 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!

Shortening the validity duration does not stop any of those issues. It just shortens the duration of a potential attack to one year.

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#158
post #145
post #128

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates

#159

Remember 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…

CA/B isn't a cartel, indeed it jumps through a bunch of hoops to ensure it isn't a cartel. Cartels are illegal in many countries (the one you're most likely thinking of right now, OPEC, doesn't need to care that cartels are illegal because its members are sovereign entities, and thus they decide what the law is)

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

#160
post #157
post #146

Earlier 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.

Eliminate, no. But the goal of security is generally not to make breaches impossible, but to mitigate them / make them harder to achieve.

It's an uphill battle but I'm glad browser vendors are fighting it.

Post reply on HN