6 ms·

It seems a lot emphasis with Let's Encrypt is on the automated cert registration/installation tools. Am I missing something when all I really want are the free

• Natanael_L 11y ago
  A big part of the reason is that free certs exists already (startssl), but it takes A LOT extra work to set it up. The whole point here is that eventually the deployment tool can be integrated in existing server software, such that when you set up your server on your domain, requesting a certificate can be an automatic step that the sysadmin and web developer don't even have to think about. This makes sure encryption will eventually be deployed by default everywhere, because it is literally easier than not to.
  • drdaeman 11y ago
    > free certs exists already (startssl) Nitpick: not for businesses. If you're asking for a certificate for anything that they may suspect has slight relation to any commercial activity, the request will be denied. It may be accepted by chance, but that's unreliable. Companies who don't want to pay currently have only single option - WoSign, and they had started to give out free certificates relatively recently (I heard of them only this February)
    • codingminds 11y ago
      We use StartSSL for many business domains and never had any problems
      • nailer 11y ago
        The main thing is your use is outside StartCom's policy. See https://www.startssl.com/policy.pdf https://www.startssl.com/policy.pdf > Class 1 certificates are limited to client and server certificates, whereas the later is restricted in its usage for non-commercial purpose only. Subscribers MUST upgrade to Class 2 or higher level for any domain and site of commercial nature, when using high-profile brands and names or if involved in obtaining or relaying sensitive information such as health records, financial details, personal information etc. StartSSL will make you pay to revoke a certificate if you need to.
        • codingminds 11y ago
          Good point. Interesting, that they never complained about it when we had to resolve some other issues with the cert master
      • bryanlarsen 11y ago
        They have some sort of regex they use to flag business domains. For example, if your domain contains the word 'billing', then they won't give you a cert.
      • SG- 11y ago
        they reject the certificate request if they check the domain and there's content indicating it's a commercial business. if it's an empty site then you're ok.
  • AndyMcConachie 11y ago
    I can't use StartSSL because my DNS registrar doesn't populate whois the way they like it. Also, anyone relying on some sort of whois privacy cannot use StartSSL.
    • TurkTurkleton 11y ago
      I didn't have any problems using StartSSL for any of my domains, and they all have whois privacy.
      • aroch 11y ago
        Depending on the privacy providers, the protected email changes after every email it receives. This causes startSSL to deny your certificate requests
    • joonoro 11y ago
      I would like to add that from my personal experience I would not recommend the free StartSSL cert for personal use. The certs are free but revoking them costs money, so when the whole Heartbleed thing happened a lot of people got screwed. Regardless of the cert owners ability to pay for it, StartSSL made the web an arguably less secure place with that business decision and many did not pay to revoke their free cert. For a time there were even discussions of removing all the StartSSL certs from Firefox as a result [0]. [0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=994033 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=994033
  • toyg 11y ago
    I agree but I think registration and configuration should be split a little bit more. I personally won't trust it with my config files (and god knows what other wonderful webserver will emerge next month), but having an automated cert-generation tool is great. Also, they absolutely must improve OSX support. One of the main objectives is to help people who are in the web field but wouldn't otherwise bother learning the intricacies of SSL configuration; these people by and large use Macs.
    • Natanael_L 11y ago
      There's alternative tools that use the same standard API, you don't need to use the standard tool. If you want it to only register and authenticate to fetch a cert but not install it, and you want it to just tell you what you need to do so that you can do it manually if you so wish, then that's possible.
    • tokenizerrr 11y ago
      > I agree but I think registration and configuration should be split a little bit more. I personally won't trust it with my config files (and god knows what other wonderful webserver will emerge next month), but having an automated cert-generation tool is great. The official client can be ran in 'auth' mode, in which it will not write to your server configs. It can still automate the authentication process for you by looking at where the DocumentRoot is, and placing a file there. But this is also optional, since there is a manual authentication mode as well that just gives you a file, and you'll have to make it available under your domain somewhere and tell it when you've done so. > Also, they absolutely must improve OSX support. One of the main objectives is to help people who are in the web field but wouldn't otherwise bother learning the intricacies of SSL configuration; these people by and large use Macs. They also use Mac on their servers?
      • toyg 11y ago
        > The official client can be ran in 'auth' mode I know, I just think "auth mode" could be a separate tool to improve usability. It might just be an alias, I don't care, but it's easier to remember "get-cert" than yet another double-dash parameter IMHO. > They also use Mac on their servers? No, but very often they develop and try new tools on their Macs. By blowing the mac experience you're forcing them/us to spin up a vm (if you can) and repeat the installation. This raises the bar for adoption a little bit. In these fickle times, it can make the difference between "oh wow this is magic" and "can't be arsed, will check it out later/never".
• motoboi 11y ago
  Yes. There are free certs already. Like, for ages. Startssl is one of the CAs issuing them.
  • wwarren 11y ago
    Only free for personal use: https://www.startssl.com/?app=25#2 https://www.startssl.com/?app=25#2 and https://www.startssl.com/?app=40 https://www.startssl.com/?app=40
    • teddyh 11y ago
      WoSign reportedly issues free certs without restrictions: https://buy.wosign.com/free/ https://buy.wosign.com/free/
      • sschueller 11y ago
        The root cert they use for the free certificates is not in my Browser (Chrome 46.0.2490.80 )
  • pdkl95 11y ago
    > There are free certs already. Not anywhere that I can find. Let's Encrypt is very important or full participation on the web isn't available to the poor. The internet should be fully usable by anybody with an IP. Adding the cost of a PKI cert is a barrier to entry. > Startssl ...won't give me a certificate. (they have in the past, I don't know why they changed their mind) This assumption that a single private business providing free certificates (but mind the fine print) is somehow an a solution to the SSL problem is poor engineering[1]. Unfortunately, this kind of attitude has become very common in recent years. [1] You should always have a second source for anything critical. A design that is dependent on a single point of failure that you don't control is a design that is guaranteed to fail unpredictably.
  • mafro 11y ago
    Not convinced about this mob: https://auth.startssl.com/ https://auth.startssl.com/
• MatthewWilkes 11y ago
  Yep, you're probably missing the 3 month validity period.
  • StavrosK 11y ago
    For which?
    • detaro 11y ago
      Let's encrypt certificates are valid for only 90 days, and I guess the argument is that you want automatic tooling to take care of renewal if it happens so often.
      • lucb1e 11y ago
        That might actually be a good thing, though. Currently I have to do it for a couple of domains every year. By forcing me to automate it, it takes me more time once, but afterwards I don't have to look at it anymore at all.
      • StavrosK 11y ago
        Ugh, really? I was planning on only using the tools to write out the initial certificate file, as I don't want too much running on my servers. This has certainly put a damper on my excitement about Let's Encrypt.
        • detaro 11y ago
          From a quick look at the protocol, it shouldn't be an issue to run the ACME client on one host and scp CSRs from your servers to it, hand them to lets encrypt, and move the results back. So yes, you have to touch or run it every 2-3 months, but it doesn't have to run on all your servers.
          • StavrosK 11y ago
            I'm more wondering if I can cron it (without sudo), and not have it run as a daemon. Then, once every two weeks or so, it can just refresh the cert using the csr I generated before. It should be pretty easy to do, I'm just not familiar with the clients at this point.
• michaelt 11y ago
  There's a certain amount of back-and-forth involved in getting a domain-validated certificate. I say to the registrar "I want a cert for www.google.com" and they say back "Prove you control www.google.com by putting this file at www.google.com/yes-give-the-cert-to-michaelt.txt" then the registrar retrieves that file. You also have to generate the private key in the first place, get the URL in the right field in the CSR, send the right file to the registrar (don't accidentally send them the private key!), convert between the dozens of file formats (.pem .crt .cer .key .der .p7b .p7c .pfx .p12 .jks), add the right intermediate certificates, put the file in the right place, make sensible cipher selections, set your file permissions right, make a secure backup of your key, check it works in several browsers and OSes - and repeat the whole process in a year or two when that certificate expires. In the all-encrypted http2 world of the future, it would be better if the web server just took care of all that the first time it was started - just like a Linux server automatically generates a SSH private key at first boot.
  • acaloiar 11y ago
    One small note on HTTP/2: The TLS requirement never reached consensus in the working group. HTTP/2 implementations are free to add or remove the requirement.
    • vdaniuk 11y ago
      It seems that all major browsers require or will require TLS for HTTP/2, though.
  • dfox 11y ago
    And another small note in regards to CSR: typical CA today uses the CSR only to get public key you want to have signed and replaces everything else with whatever they deem correct.
    • scintill76 11y ago
      Did a CA once accidentally sign a raw CSR that requested to itself become a CA? It seems like I remember something like this, but I couldn't find evidence. Anyway, that's one reason for the CA to be very careful what values it pulls out of the CSR.
• 27182818284 11y ago
  >Am I missing something when all I really want are the free certs? Yes, that setting up a respectable certificate must be easy for the masses in order for their to be mass adoption.
• diafygi 11y ago
  If you just want a free cert, you can use my letsencrypt-nosudo client[1], which doesn't ask for your private key or sudo access or have to be run on your server (except for one copy-paste line you can inspect). The official letsencrypt client is geared much more towards someone who doesn't understand how TLS certs work. For people who know what they're doing, you can use lightweight clients like mine to just get your free cert. [1]: https://github.com/diafygi/letsencrypt-nosudo https://github.com/diafygi/letsencrypt-nosudo