this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
743 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59446 readers
3638 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Happy birthday to Let's Encrypt !

Huge thanks to everyone involved in making HTTPS available to everyone for free !

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Let's Encrypt is amazing, but are there any equally trustworthy alternatives people could switch to if something bad happens to it?

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

They came up with the ACME protocol, so presumably somebody could. The real barrier to entry is the cost of getting into that certificate chain of trust. I have no idea why it's so difficult and expensive.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Well, it's difficult, as it should be, because if you control a certificate in the active chain of trust of browsers, you can hack pretty much anything you want.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the CA only signing your public key to prove identity/authority? I don't think the CA can magically MITM every cert they sign.

The impact is serious enough to warrant a $1m entry fee, IMO. At best, someone could impersonate a site. They'd also have to get other things in line (e.g. DNS hijacking) to be at all successful anyway. And it's not like most people are authenticating certs themselves. They just trust browsers to trust CAs that vouch for you and prevents those scary browser warnings.

It doesn't improve encryption compared to a self-signed cert though.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

If you are the CA, you can sign a new certificate yourself for google.com and the browser will accept it. It's effectively allows MITM for any certificate. Worse, it's not even limited to certificates under that CA. The browser has no way of knowing there's 2 "valid" certs at once, and in fact that is allowed regardless (multiple servers with different instances of the SSL cert is a possibility).

Certificate pinning might save things, since that will force the same certificate as was previously used, but I'm not sure this is a common default.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

If it begins to enshitify, someone will quickly take up the helm. It's become so core now that someone like Cloudflare would just be like "We do this now."

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Cloudflare sort of provides this now by being a MITM to secure your site between your server and the end user. But this requires you and your end user to trust Cloudflare.

And fwiw the ACME protocol is open so anyone can implement it. I believe even the ACME software that EFF sends out allows you to choose your server with some configuration.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 3 hours ago

Yup, it does. I think I still have my server hard coded from when it first launched.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

They don't offer wildcard certs, but otherwise I think they are.
I wanna say acme.sh defaults to them.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 1 points 8 hours ago

Never used them, but they state at https://zerossl.com/features/acme/ that their free acme certs include wildcards.