Live data from Hacker News

WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

docs.google.com

181–190 of 252 posts

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#181
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> worst case Can you develop please? To me it seems that the worst case would be an immediate and permanent revocation of their certs because of fraud. I find Mozilla/Google very lenient in this affair, and that's probably because I don't understand what's the problem with revoking a CA with short notice. Ok it's annoying for customers, but they just have to subscribe to a new CA and install the new cert. It's annoyi…

Really, either way, this is a death sentence for Wosign/Startcom. They're unlikely to survive for a year + all of the time and cost it would take to recertify without any revenue from certificate issuance. Insta-revocation therefore wouldn't really make this notably more painful for them -- they're walking dead at this point either way and there's a good chance they may even close shop before the deadline. All it wou…

> They're unlikely to survive for a year

Well, they might, unless the other browser vendors do the same. Firefox is only like 10% of the total browser market (mobile included).

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#182
post #139

Now that StartSSL is effectively deceased, is there a commercial CA that supports the ACME protocol? Or is the ACME protocol a vanity project unique to Let's Encrypt? I manage several dozen certificates; I was very pleased when StartSSL offered an automated API to work with. Despite their flaws, they offered EV certs, wildcards, and automated one-shots, and it was very convenient. I'd gladly pay for this functionalit…

I'm the founder of SSLMate, which resells Comodo and GeoTrust certs with an automated, ACME-like API: https://sslmate.com Our API predates ACME, but we'll most likely be implementing ACME once it's finalized.

What's your take on the Comodo trademark claim on Let's Encrypt, and all the BS that ensued?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11964583

I personally immediately replaced all of my and my company's comodo certificates with DigiCert ones.

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#183
post #121
post #61

Well shit. I always liked StarCom because of their approach to charge for verification (with increasing costs for each higher trust level) but not for issuing certs (while still manually checking every cert request, at least for any OV&EV cert in my case). This entire WoSign acquisition is incredibly shady. Shortly after that some of the customer reps had chinese names, service quality declined and we got offered to…

What use case do you have for wildcards that you can't use Let's Encrypt or similar automated issuance? Just curious, as I've yet to hear a terribly compelling one...

I have a site that creates a subdomain for each new enterprise account and all subdomains relay on one StartCom wildcard cert. Ultimately, I can write a script to create a let's encrypt cert for each new subdomain but I've got plenty of other work on my plate at the moment.

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#184
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, either way, this is a death sentence for Wosign/Startcom. They're unlikely to survive for a year + all of the time and cost it would take to recertify without any revenue from certificate issuance. Insta-revocation therefore wouldn't really make this notably more painful for them -- they're walking dead at this point either way and there's a good chance they may even close shop before the deadline. All it wou…

> They're unlikely to survive for a year Well, they might, unless the other browser vendors do the same. Firefox is only like 10% of the total browser market (mobile included).

AFAIK, moz's CA isn't just for FF. On linux, the default "root CA" used by google chrome is mozilla's NSS as shown here[0].

Also, other root certificate programs may follow suit.

[0]: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/root-ca-poli...

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#185
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the founder of SSLMate, which resells Comodo and GeoTrust certs with an automated, ACME-like API: https://sslmate.com Our API predates ACME, but we'll most likely be implementing ACME once it's finalized.

What's your take on the Comodo trademark claim on Let's Encrypt, and all the BS that ensued? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11964583 I personally immediately replaced all of my and my company's comodo certificates with DigiCert ones.

Crazy Comodo. When that happened I resolved to never renew or buy new Comodo certs. It might be that Comodo backed away from that ridiculous plan but to be honest I don't really care - the CEO portrayed himself as a douche and it seems safe to assume they're a toxic company.

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#186
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, either way, this is a death sentence for Wosign/Startcom. They're unlikely to survive for a year + all of the time and cost it would take to recertify without any revenue from certificate issuance. Insta-revocation therefore wouldn't really make this notably more painful for them -- they're walking dead at this point either way and there's a good chance they may even close shop before the deadline. All it wou…

> They're unlikely to survive for a year Well, they might, unless the other browser vendors do the same. Firefox is only like 10% of the total browser market (mobile included).

Even if other browsers don't follow suit, 10% is enough for effectively no one to choose their certificates. When there are other, even free, alternatives, why would anyone voluntarily give up 10% of their potential users?

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with S/MIME?

It has less users than PGP/MIME, which is an impressive feat.

Since many major clients support it out of the box, I'd say that at least for verification purposes, it has more users than PGP/MIME.

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#188
post #56

Goddammit. I really liked StartCom for free S/MIME certificates and TLS certs that don't expire after a month. So people, is there a comparable free product out there (don't say LetsEncrypt, they don't do S/MIME unless I'm mistaken)?

Why are you using S/MIME? You can still get free S/MIME certs from Comodo.

Trying to reply to a few parts of this nested thread at once, starting with OP:

>shawkinaw

>Goddammit. I really liked StartCom for free S/MIME certificates

Same. It came up over the last year in previous discussions when the covert acquisition began to come to light and I was forced to reluctantly dumb StartCom, but it really was a shame because StartCom's core business model was extremely sensible and doesn't seem to exist elsewhere. They essentially only charged for where there was a human time cost. So you could do automated verification (level 1) for free with decent time outs, and then upgrade to greater levels of identity verification (level 2 individual, level organization etc) building on the previous ones but in each case only the identity verification cost money, once verified you could request unlimited certs with that identity (since address ownership can be confirmed automatically). For email in particular it was quite nice.

As far as S/MIME vs PGP/GPG, it boils down to practicality in many situations.

>Why are you using S/MIME?

>It has less users than PGP/MIME, which is an impressive feat.

S/MIME has native transparent support on a number of major OS/email platforms, importantly including iOS (since iOS 5 IIRC). That helps solve the perennial general adoption problem encryption faces, ie., what happens when people using it interact with people who do not. With S/MIME there is some potential value just from signing and it doesn't require most recipients to install anything else at all.

I at least do use GPG in addition, and if Apple/Google/Microsoft/other clients all built PGP support natively into their platforms and email offerings then I'd stop bothering with S/MIME period. But as far as "how can I get many of my parents/family/friends to gain at least a little end-to-end email auth/security that they can use with minimal to zero additional effort on their part" goes S/MIME has remained valuable. Unfortunately. The entire state of email authentication in general is insanely frustrating (or even depressing), there are no great solutions right now despite the tech all being there. Use of S/MIME certainly has plenty of flaws. Right now though I've found it to still be a useful part of my toolkit and at one point I'd hoped that other places might adopt some of StartCom's innovations and ideas without the many warts. No such luck.

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#189
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many companies can survive a year without revenue? None I've ever worked at. Not only that, but their readmission after that year is uncertain! Mozilla gets to pick an auditor ( raises hand! pick me! ) that gets full access to their code. This is, I think, a higher bar than a new CA would have to clear. StartCom is a popular CA. Distrusting previously-issued certificates would be extremely disruptive. Moreover, i…

CAs need irreproachable reputations, anything less is absurd, like trusting your bank manager even though you know they have a gambling problem and owe money to Fat Tony. Having sympathy for their commercial corcerns is absurd. The better solution would be to alert on all of their certs as being 'low trust'. A first step towards explicit trust belief , where reputations build slowly over time and can be severly damag…

How is that solution better than effectively putting them out of business?

Re: WoSign and StartCom: Mozilla’s proposed conclusion

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, either way, this is a death sentence for Wosign/Startcom. They're unlikely to survive for a year + all of the time and cost it would take to recertify without any revenue from certificate issuance. Insta-revocation therefore wouldn't really make this notably more painful for them -- they're walking dead at this point either way and there's a good chance they may even close shop before the deadline. All it wou…

It's worse even than that, because a substantial portion of their customer base will need to renew during the year, and will switch to new CAs. Not only do they forgo a year of revenue, but they also begin the next year with a substantially reduced customer base.

I really appreciate the analysis. However, can WoSign resell a different CA's services for the next year without their customers noticing?
Post reply on HN