Live data from Hacker News

Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

theregister.co.uk

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#91

There are two mutually exclusive views of the web. As a set of protocols to allow individual humans to share information about things they love and the web as a set of protocols to make a living. There are real reasons for the for-profit web to want to limited cert lifetimes since revocation doesn't really work in practice. In terms of browser dev the two views are mutually exclusive and the one that funds the coders…

You already have to rely on a third party to get a domain (and to get an IP address)

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#92
post #78
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may not be very familiar with Let’s Encrypt’s challenges. Allow me to briefly explain the gist of them: The two most common challenges are an http challenge, and a DNS challenge. The http challenge gives you a response code to host as a file on the domain during the validation period. This challenge is, for all practical purposes, random, and cannot be guessed. Then, after your script tells Let’s Encrypt…

> DNS challenge is even more secure, in my opinion, as it works the same but the response code is stored in a TXT record for Let’s Encrypt to validate. In order to break this you would need control of the DNS servers. > Now let’s contrast this with, for instance, getting a multi-year certificate from the likes of Verisign or similar: this (as far as I am aware) requires manual interaction, which can at least theoreti…

I think there's an underlying assumption that your server, your DNS registrar, and all the CAs present in your root store are trustworthy. It may not be a particularly safe assumption, but it's presumably better than unverified TLS or trust on first use (for the majority of present day usecases).

If anything, I would expect universal adoption of automated verification methods to improve security. Instead of only needing to trick a single CA out of an entire root store into issuing a certificate, you would instead need to hijack the DNS listing without being noticed by _anyone_ (and hopefully all CAs, as well as everyone else, would be on the lookout for this).

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#94
post #78
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may not be very familiar with Let’s Encrypt’s challenges. Allow me to briefly explain the gist of them: The two most common challenges are an http challenge, and a DNS challenge. The http challenge gives you a response code to host as a file on the domain during the validation period. This challenge is, for all practical purposes, random, and cannot be guessed. Then, after your script tells Let’s Encrypt…

> DNS challenge is even more secure, in my opinion, as it works the same but the response code is stored in a TXT record for Let’s Encrypt to validate. In order to break this you would need control of the DNS servers. > Now let’s contrast this with, for instance, getting a multi-year certificate from the likes of Verisign or similar: this (as far as I am aware) requires manual interaction, which can at least theoreti…

This is correct. But perhaps even more correct would be to say it _consolidates_ the risk at your DNS registrar, since of course bad guys who seize control of your DNS records could anyway deny all service and capture anything unencrypted.

You should definitely not use an untrustworthy DNS registrar or registry for important things, but that was true regardless and it hasn't stopped the .com TLD (which is run very badly indeed) making a tremendous amount of money.

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#95
post #91

There are two mutually exclusive views of the web. As a set of protocols to allow individual humans to share information about things they love and the web as a set of protocols to make a living. There are real reasons for the for-profit web to want to limited cert lifetimes since revocation doesn't really work in practice. In terms of browser dev the two views are mutually exclusive and the one that funds the coders…

You already have to rely on a third party to get a domain (and to get an IP address)

Every additional third party is an extra problem. It's an extra relationship to track.

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#96
post #11
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will that automation verify that certificate is issued to the legal owner of the web site and not a hacker? Are the challenges used by Let's Encrypt secure? For me, automating certificate issuance will lead to less and less verification, to the point where having a valid certificate will become meaningless. EDIT: to clarify - there are two bad things about Let's Encrypt: 1. It's automated 2. It's free The fact th…

I think you may not be very familiar with Let’s Encrypt’s challenges. Allow me to briefly explain the gist of them: The two most common challenges are an http challenge, and a DNS challenge. The http challenge gives you a response code to host as a file on the domain during the validation period. This challenge is, for all practical purposes, random, and cannot be guessed. Then, after your script tells Let’s Encrypt…

> Additionally, many more traditional CAs will let an inexperienced user have the CA generate the private key

This should not be true for any CA in the Web PKI. If you have evidence that a CA trusted by Mozilla offers this service you should give that evidence to m.d.s.policy (or me and I'll see it gets passed on with attribution)

There have been resellers who offer this. These are independent businesses from the CAs, and it's even crazier to let them (basically middlemen with no oversight) pick your private keys or know what they are. But as separate businesses it's hard for us to effectively stop them.

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, I completely agree that certificate transparency is beneficial for that and we have an alert setup. But, that still leaves me not wanting to leak every single subdomain we use internally. Hence using wildcard certificates.

CT didn't change this for bad guys. If you're a bad guy (or a neutral researcher with a budget for the data) you can buy what's called "Passive DNS". Several suppliers will give you a list of DNS requests and their answers, the identifying information for who made the requests is elided so it's not PII but it has the same effect of making the fact servername.example.com exists in effect public information. Even if yo…

I never heard about Passive DNS before. Thanks.

That said, shouldn't that be illegal? Where does this data come from anyway? I'm guessing spyware - on the phone, in browsers, and spyware browsers like Chrome.

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#98

There are two mutually exclusive views of the web. As a set of protocols to allow individual humans to share information about things they love and the web as a set of protocols to make a living. There are real reasons for the for-profit web to want to limited cert lifetimes since revocation doesn't really work in practice. In terms of browser dev the two views are mutually exclusive and the one that funds the coders…

I am telling you there is a conspiracy going on to end the open and free web. We should fiercefully start to fight back otherwise those who made the internet great (the open source hackers working on LAMP) will loose everything.

I'll agree that modern mainstream browsers (and devices!) have an increasingly centralized security model that isn't at all conducive to an open web. But given the current state of the FOSS ecosystem, I'm not terribly concerned in the long term so long as the network layer remains open to all.

(Consider: QtWebEngine, PinePhone, SiFive, OpenTitan, IPFS, DAT, Solid, ...)

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#99

There are two mutually exclusive views of the web. As a set of protocols to allow individual humans to share information about things they love and the web as a set of protocols to make a living. There are real reasons for the for-profit web to want to limited cert lifetimes since revocation doesn't really work in practice. In terms of browser dev the two views are mutually exclusive and the one that funds the coders…

With Let's Encrypt it's cheaper than ever to host a personal website over HTTPS with a certificate that updates itself. Due to Let's Encrypt, free hosting services like Netlify or GitHub Pages are now providing HTTPS certificates and installing it on your own server is pretty painless, if you're into managing your own server. And if your hosting provider doesn't support Let's Encrypt, you can always put Cloudflare in…

>So I don't really understand what you're talking about,

That's because you didn't finish reading my post.

>Expect to eventually be unable to host a visitable or indexable website without relying on at least one third party service in the near future.

Re: Safari will no longer trust certs valid for more than 13 months

#100
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CAs have always been third-party services, though. Their APIs just used to involve humans talking to humans, rather than machines talking to machines. But that's no less of an operational dependency. In a systems engineering plan (e.g. a NASA long-term project), both kinds of dependencies are considered liabilities that must be engineered for long-term reliability, fault-tolerance, etc.

In the past browsers did not scaremonger so much about self-signed certs and search engines would index sites that were just http and this didn't effect their ranking.

Search engines have stopped listing http sites? Since when? I do not have https for my site (unclear if sourcefoge allows https for custom domains)
Post reply on HN