7 ms·

With the practicality of something that only worked on Debian systems aside... > Between Let's Encrypt and StartCom ... What do we have? StartCom doesn't al

With the practicality of something that only worked on Debian systems aside... > Between Let's Encrypt and StartCom ... What do we have? StartCom doesn't allow their free certificates to be used for commercial purposes and will hold you to ransom if you need to revoke it (eg. after a major vulnerability which exposes private keys). Let's Encrypt only issue certificates that are valid for 90 days[0] because they want you to automate renewal by having your server automatically run their script which needs root privileges, and they use Google as the gatekeeper of who is allowed a certificate[1]. We are still short an option that issues certificates that are valid for 1+ years, which can be revoked at any time, can be used for any purpose and doesn't pass every request to a corporation for approval. [0] https://letsencrypt.org/2015/11/09/why-90-days.html https://letsencrypt.org/2015/11/09/why-90-days.html [1] https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/29/phishing-and-malware.html https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/29/phishing-and-malware.html

hannob 11y ago
I haven't yet had the need to try revocation, but Wosign is a more accessible option than startssl. No noncommercial restriction, 1 year free.
- thesimon 11y ago
  One thing to look out for though is the fact that they offer you to generate a private key for you. You probably don't want them to have your private key :)
  - hannob 11y ago
    Yeah, a lot of CAs do this. I don't like it, I'd prefer a policy that forbids that. But as long as they don't force me to use that option I'm kinda okay with it.
ymse 11y ago
As someone implementing the S3 API (on Ceph) for a non-profit, another missing option is wildcard certificates.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Let's Encrypt only issue certificates that are valid for 90 days[0] because they want you to automate renewal by having your server automatically run their script which needs root privileges That script is FOSS; you can see exactly what it wants to do. And it uses a documented protocol ("ACME"), so you can write and run your own script if you want, using several different ways to prove you control the server. The script provided by Let's Encrypt mostly serves as a proof of concept and a simple implementation for some common cases; various alternatives already exist that integrate will with various server software. > and they use Google as the gatekeeper of who is allowed a certificate[1]. > [1] https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/29/phishing-and-malware.html https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/29/phishing-and-malware.html I've never once seen a report of a site finding itself on that list without actually serving malware; I don't see any obvious basis for such a complaint. > doesn't pass every request to a corporation for approval. Let's Encrypt is run by "Internet Security Research Group (ISRG)"; quoting https://letsencrypt.org/isrg/ https://letsencrypt.org/isrg/ : "ISRG is a California public benefit corporation". And personally, since I don't particularly want to see any trusted CA run by only one person, just about any CA will be a corporation of some kind. "corporation" is not a dirty word.
- DHJSH 11y ago
  > "corporation" is not a dirty word. It is to these Bernie Sanders cult members!
- neerdowell 11y ago
  > That script is FOSS; you can see exactly what it wants to do. Any method of automatically renewing certificates, regardless of what script it used, is going to require the privileges needed to alter the certificate file. The only way to not run it as root would mean the certificate is editable by a non-root user. I don't want any script, no matter how open or free or vetted, to have the ability to alter the certificate on the server. > I've never once seen a report of a site finding itself on that list without actually serving malware; I don't see any obvious basis for such a complaint. It should not up to Google to decide if I get to secure my site or not, nor should Google be being informed every time I obtain or renew a certificate. > "corporation" is not a dirty word. Third-party corporation is what I meant. If I have decided to get a certificate from Let's Encrypt (or any other CA) that should be between me and them, Google, or any other third-party, shouldn't have anything to do with it.
jepler 11y ago
You can run the letsencrypt client as non-root, but it takes a greater degree of system configuration first. letsencrypt-auto in its current incarnation sure does run as root, however. The current state of affairs is to prioritize ease over running with the lowest degree of privilege that is feasible. (and there are other ACME-protocol implementations you can choose if you prefer not to run the letsencrypt client; ISTR reading about one implemented in Ruby) I do feel more negatively about their choice to use a third-party list of domains to blacklist, particularly since they can't offer any effective appeals process (they can't afford to have people in the loop AT ALL at a price of zero)
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > I do feel more negatively about their choice to use a third-party list of domains to blacklist, particularly since they can't offer any effective appeals process If your site appears on the malware list, then both Firefox and Chrome will produce giant warnings on your site that will cause almost everyone to refuse to browse there. So you'll have much bigger problems than not getting a certificate, and you will need to get yourself removed from that list anyway. (And, for that matter, figure out what got you on that list, such as running an ad script that serves malware, or having your server compromised and serving malware you don't know about.)
  - jepler 11y ago
    I agree, if Google decides to blacklist your domain you basically own a pile of bitter bitter ashes. Is there an effective appeals process if this happens? I looked into it when LetsEncrypt announced their plans to use Google's backlists. Here's what I found for myself, copied from there [https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/the-cas-role-in-fighting-phishing-and-malware/2409/22 https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/the-cas-role-in-fighting...]: Google's Safe Browsing FAQ [https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/safebrowsing_faq https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/safebrowsing_faq] lists three types of sites which receive advisories: Phishing, Malware, and Unwanted Software. Two of the three types provide an appeals/delisting process, but "Unwanted Software" does not. However, it may be that LE's proposed use of the Safe Browsing API is only looking at the first two types.
newman314 11y ago
Agreed. Not all uses of certs allow for easy automation. For example, ddwrt or a NAS. I would like to use proper certs but don't want to screw around in the firmware which might potentially break updates.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Then run the script somewhere else and copy it over? I frankly don't see the point of using a CA-signed cert for a personal device, but it should be doable without spending more than a few minutes every three months.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    Until you have several devices, then it begins to add up. It should at least be a switch: --override-expiry --days=365 perhaps.
ams6110 11y ago
Does certificate revocation work better these days? http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/05/13/how-certificate-revocation-doesnt-work-in-practice.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/05/13/how-certificate...
- azet 11y ago
  Short story? No. Adam Langely has extensively written about the subject and difficulties at Google and in Chrome. In chronological order: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/03/18/revocation.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/03/18/revocation.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/19/revchecking.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/19/revchecking.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/29/revocationagain.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/29/revocationagain.ht... There hasn't been a lot of progress there but Certificate Transparency is of course a new player that might change how revocation works for different systems as well.
geofft 11y ago
The SPI certificate authority was never a public one. It was only used to sign Debian sites (and the majority of those have certs issued by Gandi these days; I think it's just debconf.org left). So StartCom's non-commercial restriction is fine, and Let's Encrypt's DFSG-compliant script is fine. (Frankly, they're not even relevant for the use case of replacing the SPI CA, because Debian can just pay for certificates. If there's somehow a problem with funding, which I don't think Debian has at this scale, I'm sure there are countless people who would be thrilled to donate some money.)
iamsohungry 11y ago
> Let's Encrypt only issue certificates that are valid for 90 days[0] because they want you to automate renewal by having your server automatically run their script which needs root privileges The provided script: 1. Is FOSS. You can audit it before running. 2. Is an example, not required. You can write your own script from scratch if you want, or even do it by hand (although this would be admittedly tedious to do every 90 days). > and they use Google as the gatekeeper of who is allowed a certificate[1]. That's a drastic oversimplification. The Google Safe Browsing API lists phishing and malware sites. I can see some concern that Google might mark sites as phishing or malware for political reasons or something, but so far I know of no cases of that happening. In fact, high-profile sites that do contain a lot of malware have been left unmarked: see Pirate Bay, Kickass Torrents, MegaUploads. I definitely have concerns about censorship, but so far I see no evidence that's happening. If you have such evidence, I'd be very receptive to seeing it. > We are still short an option that issues certificates that are valid for 1+ years That's not something I want, or something that's good for the security of the internet. > can be used for any purpose and doesn't pass every request to a corporation for approval. As long as the limitation continues to be on malware, I'm fine with it, and I'm not sure why you aren't. P.S. To be clear, I know very little about StartCom and am not defending or attacking them.
sorenstoutner 11y ago
StartCom does allow their free (Class 1) certificates to be used for commercial purposes. They just reserve certain features that many businesses would appreciate (like having your business name on the certificate) for paid certificates (Class 2 or higher). From their FAQ: "2.) The certificate is for my company, what shall I do? In the Class 1 settings (free), the only possible relationship between StartCom and the subscriber is with individuals, i.e. natural persons. StartCom has no relationship with the organization a subscriber may represents and acknowledges only the subscriber. All responsibilities according to the StartCom CA Policy are that of the subscriber personally, even in case he/she decides to obtain certification as an employee or representative of an organization. Organizations should perform Class 2 validation and an organization name may only appear in a digital certificate at Class 2 level and higher." [0] [0] http://www.startssl.com/?app=25#2 http://www.startssl.com/?app=25#2

hannob 11y ago

I haven't yet had the need to try revocation, but Wosign is a more accessible option than startssl. No noncommercial restriction, 1 year free.

thesimon 11y ago
One thing to look out for though is the fact that they offer you to generate a private key for you. You probably don't want them to have your private key :)
- hannob 11y ago
  Yeah, a lot of CAs do this. I don't like it, I'd prefer a policy that forbids that. But as long as they don't force me to use that option I'm kinda okay with it.

ymse 11y ago

As someone implementing the S3 API (on Ceph) for a non-profit, another missing option is wildcard certificates.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> Let's Encrypt only issue certificates that are valid for 90 days[0] because they want you to automate renewal by having your server automatically run their script which needs root privileges That script is FOSS; you can see exactly what it wants to do. And it uses a documented protocol ("ACME"), so you can write and run your own script if you want, using several different ways to prove you control the server. The script provided by Let's Encrypt mostly serves as a proof of concept and a simple implementation for some common cases; various alternatives already exist that integrate will with various server software. > and they use Google as the gatekeeper of who is allowed a certificate[1]. > [1] https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/29/phishing-and-malware.html https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/29/phishing-and-malware.html I've never once seen a report of a site finding itself on that list without actually serving malware; I don't see any obvious basis for such a complaint. > doesn't pass every request to a corporation for approval. Let's Encrypt is run by "Internet Security Research Group (ISRG)"; quoting https://letsencrypt.org/isrg/ https://letsencrypt.org/isrg/ : "ISRG is a California public benefit corporation". And personally, since I don't particularly want to see any trusted CA run by only one person, just about any CA will be a corporation of some kind. "corporation" is not a dirty word.

DHJSH 11y ago
> "corporation" is not a dirty word. It is to these Bernie Sanders cult members!
neerdowell 11y ago
> That script is FOSS; you can see exactly what it wants to do. Any method of automatically renewing certificates, regardless of what script it used, is going to require the privileges needed to alter the certificate file. The only way to not run it as root would mean the certificate is editable by a non-root user. I don't want any script, no matter how open or free or vetted, to have the ability to alter the certificate on the server. > I've never once seen a report of a site finding itself on that list without actually serving malware; I don't see any obvious basis for such a complaint. It should not up to Google to decide if I get to secure my site or not, nor should Google be being informed every time I obtain or renew a certificate. > "corporation" is not a dirty word. Third-party corporation is what I meant. If I have decided to get a certificate from Let's Encrypt (or any other CA) that should be between me and them, Google, or any other third-party, shouldn't have anything to do with it.

jepler 11y ago

You can run the letsencrypt client as non-root, but it takes a greater degree of system configuration first. letsencrypt-auto in its current incarnation sure does run as root, however. The current state of affairs is to prioritize ease over running with the lowest degree of privilege that is feasible. (and there are other ACME-protocol implementations you can choose if you prefer not to run the letsencrypt client; ISTR reading about one implemented in Ruby) I do feel more negatively about their choice to use a third-party list of domains to blacklist, particularly since they can't offer any effective appeals process (they can't afford to have people in the loop AT ALL at a price of zero)

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> I do feel more negatively about their choice to use a third-party list of domains to blacklist, particularly since they can't offer any effective appeals process If your site appears on the malware list, then both Firefox and Chrome will produce giant warnings on your site that will cause almost everyone to refuse to browse there. So you'll have much bigger problems than not getting a certificate, and you will need to get yourself removed from that list anyway. (And, for that matter, figure out what got you on that list, such as running an ad script that serves malware, or having your server compromised and serving malware you don't know about.)
- jepler 11y ago
  I agree, if Google decides to blacklist your domain you basically own a pile of bitter bitter ashes. Is there an effective appeals process if this happens? I looked into it when LetsEncrypt announced their plans to use Google's backlists. Here's what I found for myself, copied from there [https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/the-cas-role-in-fighting-phishing-and-malware/2409/22 https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/the-cas-role-in-fighting...]: Google's Safe Browsing FAQ [https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/safebrowsing_faq https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/safebrowsing_faq] lists three types of sites which receive advisories: Phishing, Malware, and Unwanted Software. Two of the three types provide an appeals/delisting process, but "Unwanted Software" does not. However, it may be that LE's proposed use of the Safe Browsing API is only looking at the first two types.

newman314 11y ago

Agreed. Not all uses of certs allow for easy automation. For example, ddwrt or a NAS. I would like to use proper certs but don't want to screw around in the firmware which might potentially break updates.

icebraining 11y ago
Then run the script somewhere else and copy it over? I frankly don't see the point of using a CA-signed cert for a personal device, but it should be doable without spending more than a few minutes every three months.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  Until you have several devices, then it begins to add up. It should at least be a switch: --override-expiry --days=365 perhaps.

ams6110 11y ago

Does certificate revocation work better these days? http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/05/13/how-certificate-revocation-doesnt-work-in-practice.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/05/13/how-certificate...

azet 11y ago
Short story? No. Adam Langely has extensively written about the subject and difficulties at Google and in Chrome. In chronological order: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/03/18/revocation.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/03/18/revocation.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/19/revchecking.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/19/revchecking.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/29/revocationagain.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/04/29/revocationagain.ht... There hasn't been a lot of progress there but Certificate Transparency is of course a new player that might change how revocation works for different systems as well.

geofft 11y ago

The SPI certificate authority was never a public one. It was only used to sign Debian sites (and the majority of those have certs issued by Gandi these days; I think it's just debconf.org left). So StartCom's non-commercial restriction is fine, and Let's Encrypt's DFSG-compliant script is fine. (Frankly, they're not even relevant for the use case of replacing the SPI CA, because Debian can just pay for certificates. If there's somehow a problem with funding, which I don't think Debian has at this scale, I'm sure there are countless people who would be thrilled to donate some money.)

iamsohungry 11y ago

> Let's Encrypt only issue certificates that are valid for 90 days[0] because they want you to automate renewal by having your server automatically run their script which needs root privileges The provided script: 1. Is FOSS. You can audit it before running. 2. Is an example, not required. You can write your own script from scratch if you want, or even do it by hand (although this would be admittedly tedious to do every 90 days). > and they use Google as the gatekeeper of who is allowed a certificate[1]. That's a drastic oversimplification. The Google Safe Browsing API lists phishing and malware sites. I can see some concern that Google might mark sites as phishing or malware for political reasons or something, but so far I know of no cases of that happening. In fact, high-profile sites that do contain a lot of malware have been left unmarked: see Pirate Bay, Kickass Torrents, MegaUploads. I definitely have concerns about censorship, but so far I see no evidence that's happening. If you have such evidence, I'd be very receptive to seeing it. > We are still short an option that issues certificates that are valid for 1+ years That's not something I want, or something that's good for the security of the internet. > can be used for any purpose and doesn't pass every request to a corporation for approval. As long as the limitation continues to be on malware, I'm fine with it, and I'm not sure why you aren't. P.S. To be clear, I know very little about StartCom and am not defending or attacking them.

sorenstoutner 11y ago

StartCom does allow their free (Class 1) certificates to be used for commercial purposes. They just reserve certain features that many businesses would appreciate (like having your business name on the certificate) for paid certificates (Class 2 or higher). From their FAQ: "2.) The certificate is for my company, what shall I do? In the Class 1 settings (free), the only possible relationship between StartCom and the subscriber is with individuals, i.e. natural persons. StartCom has no relationship with the organization a subscriber may represents and acknowledges only the subscriber. All responsibilities according to the StartCom CA Policy are that of the subscriber personally, even in case he/she decides to obtain certification as an employee or representative of an organization. Organizations should perform Class 2 validation and an organization name may only appear in a digital certificate at Class 2 level and higher." [0] [0] http://www.startssl.com/?app=25#2 http://www.startssl.com/?app=25#2