7 ms·

There's really not much reason to use StartSSL now that Let's Encrypt, AWS Certificate Manager and others offer free certs with vastly better support, tooling a

There's really not much reason to use StartSSL now that Let's Encrypt, AWS Certificate Manager and others offer free certs with vastly better support, tooling and interfaces.

aftbit 11y ago
When I can use Let's Encrypt to get a certificate in production without running anything on my production web server, I'll consider it. Right now, StartSSL validates my domain via email and I only have to touch it once a year, not once every 3 months like Let's Encrypt.
- xxpor 11y ago
  Cert rotation every 3 months is a feature, IMHO. It encourages you to automate everything related to rotation.
  - ars 11y ago
    I got downmodded before for saying this, but I still feel this way: Automating this simply means that if someone hacks your machine, they also have full access to generate any certs they like. I don't consider this a positive thing. You can separate the generation onto another machine, but it's much more complicated, and the default install is not that way. I have yet to hear any useful reason to rotate the key.
    - profmonocle 11y ago
      Hasn't this always been true for domain validated certificates? If you control the domain's content, you can get a cert. I don't see how LE makes that any worse.
    - thesimon 11y ago
      >Automating this simply means that if someone hacks your machine, they also have full access to generate any certs they like. Well, they can generate certs for your domain. But what exactly is the big difference between generating a new certificate for your domain and having your private key. I fail to see why it would be a huge risk, they can access all your users data in any case. >I have yet to hear any useful reason to rotate the key. http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/85963/what-is-the-purpose-of-frequently-rotating-tls-certificates-without-changing-und http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/85963/what-is-th... Basically limiting damage in case of a compromise.
      - Laforet 11y ago
        A short validity period also helps to keep the size of revocation lists manageable as they expire sooner.
    - imaginenore 11y ago
      If they hack your machine, they can generate new certificates whether you have LetsEncrypt installed or not. They can just install it.
    - rakoo 11y ago
      It's like not-perfect-but-still-good forward secrecy: Your old certificate may be leaked or decrypted, but it will only endanger past communications; the communications after this one will still be secure. Another side-effect is that you don't need to manage revocation stuff as diligently, because certificates automatically expire shortly. The window during which a certificate is valid is extremely short and recent, which means there is less chance that a problem happens. when that probability increases (as a result of being older), certificates become automatically invalid.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Well, they can generate new certificates for as long as they have access to your machine. Take that access away, and they can't generate certificates anymore. All in, the Lets Encrypt way brings you more security. Since the certificate validity is shorter, even generating an extra certificate will give the attacker a smaller average time with a valid cert than stealing your StartSSL cert.
- imron 11y ago
  I just set up Let's Encrypt on a number of my sites. I'll take an automated process I run via cronjob and that requires no manual intervention, over a process that requires I touch it once a year. The decision (to me) is a no-brainer.
- imperalix 11y ago
  I use Let's Encrypt DNS validation. This does not require you to run anything on your server. You just need to have a way to distribute cert to your servers.
  - sandGorgon 11y ago
    can you explain this ? I'm trying to bake letsencrypt certificates in my docker images and I am trying to figure out a way around the race condition (nginx needs a certificate to run <-> certificate needs nginx to run).
    - kccqzy 11y ago
      You can obtain a certificate by running let's encrypt's docker image, which seems to contain a python web server just to do the validation.
      - sandGorgon 11y ago
        cannot run a docker inside a docker. the problem is not running a webserver, the problem is the race condition which needs to be solved when docker starts up.
    - imron 11y ago
      How about storing the letsencrypt certificates in a data-container/locally on the host and mapping those files to the nginx container when you start it? For the very first time, you can use let's encrypt's manual verification process, but then have the let's encrypt client set up to renew certs automatically (possibly even from a separate container) using same data file mappings.
      - sandGorgon 11y ago
        which is why im preferring to spend 10$ on a certificate instead (or rather 85$ for a wildcard).
    - vacri 11y ago
- veeti 11y ago
  I'm afraid you'll have to go through renewal every 3 months, but I'll still make a shameless plug of my client [1]. It uses DNS validation exclusively so you can generate certificates wherever you want. In addition, domain authorizations last for 10 months, so you don't have to go through the DNS verification each time: just renewing is sufficient. Run the issue command, drop new certs into configuration management, done. Couple minutes tops. Just set your calendar! [1] https://github.com/veeti/manuale https://github.com/veeti/manuale
  - arantius 11y ago
    Thanks! A hands-off (on?) manual client is what I always wanted. I've just finally used Let's Encrypt for the first time, with manuale.
0x0 11y ago
Lack of support for wildcard certificates is still an issue for Let's Encrypt. Rate limiting and SNI are two issues that means a wildcard certificate is still highly desirable.
- EwanToo 11y ago
  I'm struggling to think of a browser that supports SHA-2 TLS encryption, and doesn't support SNI, which one am I missing?
  - 0x0 11y ago
    Windows XP and Android 2.x comes to mind. Non-HTTP protocols (IMAP, SMTP, XMPP, SIP etc) may also struggle with SNI. But the biggest problem here is wildcarded subdomains, since LE doesn't let you get more than 5 certificates per domain.
    - jhkaghjkga 11y ago
      That's wrong. You can get more than 5 certs/domain: either you have to wait a week (it's 5 certs/domain/week), or you include multiple hostnames in a single certificate (up to 100 IIRC). The latter would allow 500 subdomains/week.
      - 0x0 11y ago
        That's quite limiting if you are handling customer signups, and it still breaks SNI-less clients except for the first batch.
    - Tepix 11y ago
      Windows XP and Android 2.x both have big security problems. You should encourage your users to upgrade. Also I think with Firefox on Windows XP it should work.
      - 0x0 11y ago
        That doesn't help when you are targeting a market where Android 2.x is prevalent.
ascorbic 11y ago
StartSSL has some of the worst support I've ever encountered. Normally bad support means clueless or non-responsive. However StartSSL support is often actively hostile, treating customers as idiots or worse. I should point out that this isn't always the case, and I have used them in the past without trouble, but the times when it is bad are bad enough to write them off. Their site also looks like it was made in 1998, and while using client certificates is secure and everything, it's also seriously user-hostile. I have to remember which computer and browser I used a year ago to sign up? Yeah, I know I should back up client certificates, but seriously who does that?
- derFunk 11y ago
  I agree that their style in responding to questions is really bad (one liners etc). Yet I'm having the experience that they responded quickly and with helpful information if you had a question. I'm now just curious what happens to my data if they're sold to China. I mean, the amount of personal data they are asking for when acquiring a certificate is not really small.
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    It really varies. Sometimes you're right, and they respond quickly (if tersely) to questions. However other times they're rude and dismissive.
- Tepix 11y ago
  I've had good experiences lately, when they relaunched their website the option to create your own certificate for S/MIME had disappeared (on Mac - apparently it was still there when using Windows). I opened a ticket and the next day it was fixed. Now you can even upload your own CSR for S/MIME certificates which allows for 4096bit S/MIME keys. Previously they only had the in-browser key creation. Nice.
- josteink 11y ago
  > while using client certificates is secure and everything, it's also seriously user-hostile. I have to remember which computer and browser I used a year ago to sign up? Yeah, I know I should back up client certificates, but seriously who does that? So you want a secure website, and you agree that SSL is needed for things to be secure. But you're not willing to put in one inch of effort yourself to secure your own SSL keys. You can't even bother to back up the master key to your own certs, because it's too much work? Cognitive dissonance much? If you care about security, then do it properly. If you're going to do it half-assed, just don't bother at all. All you're doing then is contributing to security-theater, which is all the work and no real benefits.
specialist 11y ago
Just today, I'm setting up my first https by myself. Started with Let's Encrypt. Running Mac OS X. Failed. Guessed cause has something to do with macports vs homebrew and having the proper Python version active. Disabled macports. Now the app runs. But I got "Failed to connect to host for DVSNI challenge". Start googling, reading, messing around with this for a while. No joy. Bailed on Let's Encrypt, started over with StartSSL, because its the first source of free for not-for-profit certs I found. Happy to take recommendations for alternatives.
- raesene4 11y ago
  have you tried using something like https://gethttpsforfree.com/ https://gethttpsforfree.com/ as a front-end to the Lets encrypt process?
- Tepix 11y ago
  The official Let's Encrypt client is bloated and wants to fiddle with your HTTP server configuration. Bad idea. Use something small like https://github.com/kuba/simp_le https://github.com/kuba/simp_le or https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny
  - chmike 11y ago
    I use acme-tiny and confirm it is good. But there is still significant work to do to get a working certificate and the documentation is lacking significant details. I have my own recipe documentation that I should publish. Apart from this, this is the only script out there that did cut it for me. Note that the update process needs to be automated because let's encrypt certificates last only 3 months as I have read.
- tombrossman 11y ago
  My recommendation is to look beyond the free alternatives and consider how inexpensive paid certificates have become. These can be issued for lengths up to three full years and cost well under $10USD/year. Multi-year discounts bring three year certificates price to under $20USD. Think about how much time it is going to take you to learn how to deploy and maintain your 'free' certificates and remember time is money. What do you make an hour? Is that more than the cost of a paid certificate? I have used these certificates - https://cheapsslsecurity.com/comodo/positivessl.html https://cheapsslsecurity.com/comodo/positivessl.html - on multiple sites and it is very fast and easy. Other vendors sell them too and are likely just as good. Gandi do them too (at a slightly higher cost) and are the fastest method for me, though this may be because I have all my domains there already: https://www.gandi.net/ssl/standard?currency=USD#single https://www.gandi.net/ssl/standard?currency=USD#single Don't waste hours chasing down free certificates when paid ones are so cheap now. Use Let's Encrypt only if you need lots of certificates and the paid options become prohibitively high.
cm2187 11y ago
I will wait for IIS integration before using let's encrypt. Everything I have seen so far doesn't suggest simplicity.
- Laforet 11y ago
  https://github.com/Lone-Coder/letsencrypt-win-simple/wiki https://github.com/Lone-Coder/letsencrypt-win-simple/wiki Not perfect but seems to work fine.
Tepix 11y ago
These alternatives don't offer S/MIME certificates, do they?
josteink 11y ago
> There's really not much reason to use StartSSL now that Let's Encrypt Have you tried using it? On every domain I've tried to obtain a cert it has failed. For me StartSSL may be suboptimal, but at least it works, which is more than I can say for Letsencrypt in its current state.
- icebraining 11y ago
  What client did you use? acme-tiny has been flawless for me, though it's more manual than the main client. https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, if you are some kind of openssl master, acme-tiny is flawless. In practice, for most people, reserve a few hours for your first deployment. After you got a script that calls openssl right, it's fast to adapt for other domains, but the first time is hard.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Why do you have to be a master? Just copy-paste the commands given in the README of the repo, replacing the domain for your own.
      - marcosdumay 11y ago
        Well, at least on my computer, they were mostly broken.
    - garblegarble 11y ago
      I use https://github.com/lukas2511/letsencrypt.sh https://github.com/lukas2511/letsencrypt.sh and it handles all the openssl stuff for you, I've found it to be really nice and light-weight. You just give it a directory to put the ACME challenge files in and a list of your domains
pluma 11y ago
Except for third-party services you need to provide your own SSL certificates for. AFAIK there's no way to automate renewing the certificate you use for GitHost (with a custom domain), for example.

There's really not much reason to use StartSSL now that Let's Encrypt, AWS Certificate Manager and others offer free certs with vastly better support, tooling and interfaces.

aftbit 11y ago

When I can use Let's Encrypt to get a certificate in production without running anything on my production web server, I'll consider it. Right now, StartSSL validates my domain via email and I only have to touch it once a year, not once every 3 months like Let's Encrypt.

xxpor 11y ago
Cert rotation every 3 months is a feature, IMHO. It encourages you to automate everything related to rotation.
- ars 11y ago
  I got downmodded before for saying this, but I still feel this way: Automating this simply means that if someone hacks your machine, they also have full access to generate any certs they like. I don't consider this a positive thing. You can separate the generation onto another machine, but it's much more complicated, and the default install is not that way. I have yet to hear any useful reason to rotate the key.
  - profmonocle 11y ago
    Hasn't this always been true for domain validated certificates? If you control the domain's content, you can get a cert. I don't see how LE makes that any worse.
  - thesimon 11y ago
    >Automating this simply means that if someone hacks your machine, they also have full access to generate any certs they like. Well, they can generate certs for your domain. But what exactly is the big difference between generating a new certificate for your domain and having your private key. I fail to see why it would be a huge risk, they can access all your users data in any case. >I have yet to hear any useful reason to rotate the key. http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/85963/what-is-the-purpose-of-frequently-rotating-tls-certificates-without-changing-und http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/85963/what-is-th... Basically limiting damage in case of a compromise.
    - Laforet 11y ago
      A short validity period also helps to keep the size of revocation lists manageable as they expire sooner.
  - imaginenore 11y ago
    If they hack your machine, they can generate new certificates whether you have LetsEncrypt installed or not. They can just install it.
  - rakoo 11y ago
    It's like not-perfect-but-still-good forward secrecy: Your old certificate may be leaked or decrypted, but it will only endanger past communications; the communications after this one will still be secure. Another side-effect is that you don't need to manage revocation stuff as diligently, because certificates automatically expire shortly. The window during which a certificate is valid is extremely short and recent, which means there is less chance that a problem happens. when that probability increases (as a result of being older), certificates become automatically invalid.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, they can generate new certificates for as long as they have access to your machine. Take that access away, and they can't generate certificates anymore. All in, the Lets Encrypt way brings you more security. Since the certificate validity is shorter, even generating an extra certificate will give the attacker a smaller average time with a valid cert than stealing your StartSSL cert.
imron 11y ago
I just set up Let's Encrypt on a number of my sites. I'll take an automated process I run via cronjob and that requires no manual intervention, over a process that requires I touch it once a year. The decision (to me) is a no-brainer.
imperalix 11y ago
I use Let's Encrypt DNS validation. This does not require you to run anything on your server. You just need to have a way to distribute cert to your servers.
- sandGorgon 11y ago
  can you explain this ? I'm trying to bake letsencrypt certificates in my docker images and I am trying to figure out a way around the race condition (nginx needs a certificate to run <-> certificate needs nginx to run).
  - kccqzy 11y ago
    You can obtain a certificate by running let's encrypt's docker image, which seems to contain a python web server just to do the validation.
    - sandGorgon 11y ago
      cannot run a docker inside a docker. the problem is not running a webserver, the problem is the race condition which needs to be solved when docker starts up.
  - imron 11y ago
    How about storing the letsencrypt certificates in a data-container/locally on the host and mapping those files to the nginx container when you start it? For the very first time, you can use let's encrypt's manual verification process, but then have the let's encrypt client set up to renew certs automatically (possibly even from a separate container) using same data file mappings.
    - sandGorgon 11y ago
      which is why im preferring to spend 10$ on a certificate instead (or rather 85$ for a wildcard).
  - vacri 11y ago
veeti 11y ago
I'm afraid you'll have to go through renewal every 3 months, but I'll still make a shameless plug of my client [1]. It uses DNS validation exclusively so you can generate certificates wherever you want. In addition, domain authorizations last for 10 months, so you don't have to go through the DNS verification each time: just renewing is sufficient. Run the issue command, drop new certs into configuration management, done. Couple minutes tops. Just set your calendar! [1] https://github.com/veeti/manuale https://github.com/veeti/manuale
- arantius 11y ago
  Thanks! A hands-off (on?) manual client is what I always wanted. I've just finally used Let's Encrypt for the first time, with manuale.

0x0 11y ago

Lack of support for wildcard certificates is still an issue for Let's Encrypt. Rate limiting and SNI are two issues that means a wildcard certificate is still highly desirable.

EwanToo 11y ago
I'm struggling to think of a browser that supports SHA-2 TLS encryption, and doesn't support SNI, which one am I missing?
- 0x0 11y ago
  Windows XP and Android 2.x comes to mind. Non-HTTP protocols (IMAP, SMTP, XMPP, SIP etc) may also struggle with SNI. But the biggest problem here is wildcarded subdomains, since LE doesn't let you get more than 5 certificates per domain.
  - jhkaghjkga 11y ago
    That's wrong. You can get more than 5 certs/domain: either you have to wait a week (it's 5 certs/domain/week), or you include multiple hostnames in a single certificate (up to 100 IIRC). The latter would allow 500 subdomains/week.
    - 0x0 11y ago
      That's quite limiting if you are handling customer signups, and it still breaks SNI-less clients except for the first batch.
  - Tepix 11y ago
    Windows XP and Android 2.x both have big security problems. You should encourage your users to upgrade. Also I think with Firefox on Windows XP it should work.
    - 0x0 11y ago
      That doesn't help when you are targeting a market where Android 2.x is prevalent.

ascorbic 11y ago

StartSSL has some of the worst support I've ever encountered. Normally bad support means clueless or non-responsive. However StartSSL support is often actively hostile, treating customers as idiots or worse. I should point out that this isn't always the case, and I have used them in the past without trouble, but the times when it is bad are bad enough to write them off. Their site also looks like it was made in 1998, and while using client certificates is secure and everything, it's also seriously user-hostile. I have to remember which computer and browser I used a year ago to sign up? Yeah, I know I should back up client certificates, but seriously who does that?

derFunk 11y ago
I agree that their style in responding to questions is really bad (one liners etc). Yet I'm having the experience that they responded quickly and with helpful information if you had a question. I'm now just curious what happens to my data if they're sold to China. I mean, the amount of personal data they are asking for when acquiring a certificate is not really small.
- ascorbic 11y ago
  It really varies. Sometimes you're right, and they respond quickly (if tersely) to questions. However other times they're rude and dismissive.
Tepix 11y ago
I've had good experiences lately, when they relaunched their website the option to create your own certificate for S/MIME had disappeared (on Mac - apparently it was still there when using Windows). I opened a ticket and the next day it was fixed. Now you can even upload your own CSR for S/MIME certificates which allows for 4096bit S/MIME keys. Previously they only had the in-browser key creation. Nice.
josteink 11y ago
> while using client certificates is secure and everything, it's also seriously user-hostile. I have to remember which computer and browser I used a year ago to sign up? Yeah, I know I should back up client certificates, but seriously who does that? So you want a secure website, and you agree that SSL is needed for things to be secure. But you're not willing to put in one inch of effort yourself to secure your own SSL keys. You can't even bother to back up the master key to your own certs, because it's too much work? Cognitive dissonance much? If you care about security, then do it properly. If you're going to do it half-assed, just don't bother at all. All you're doing then is contributing to security-theater, which is all the work and no real benefits.

specialist 11y ago

Just today, I'm setting up my first https by myself. Started with Let's Encrypt. Running Mac OS X. Failed. Guessed cause has something to do with macports vs homebrew and having the proper Python version active. Disabled macports. Now the app runs. But I got "Failed to connect to host for DVSNI challenge". Start googling, reading, messing around with this for a while. No joy. Bailed on Let's Encrypt, started over with StartSSL, because its the first source of free for not-for-profit certs I found. Happy to take recommendations for alternatives.

raesene4 11y ago
have you tried using something like https://gethttpsforfree.com/ https://gethttpsforfree.com/ as a front-end to the Lets encrypt process?
Tepix 11y ago
The official Let's Encrypt client is bloated and wants to fiddle with your HTTP server configuration. Bad idea. Use something small like https://github.com/kuba/simp_le https://github.com/kuba/simp_le or https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny
- chmike 11y ago
  I use acme-tiny and confirm it is good. But there is still significant work to do to get a working certificate and the documentation is lacking significant details. I have my own recipe documentation that I should publish. Apart from this, this is the only script out there that did cut it for me. Note that the update process needs to be automated because let's encrypt certificates last only 3 months as I have read.
tombrossman 11y ago
My recommendation is to look beyond the free alternatives and consider how inexpensive paid certificates have become. These can be issued for lengths up to three full years and cost well under $10USD/year. Multi-year discounts bring three year certificates price to under $20USD. Think about how much time it is going to take you to learn how to deploy and maintain your 'free' certificates and remember time is money. What do you make an hour? Is that more than the cost of a paid certificate? I have used these certificates - https://cheapsslsecurity.com/comodo/positivessl.html https://cheapsslsecurity.com/comodo/positivessl.html - on multiple sites and it is very fast and easy. Other vendors sell them too and are likely just as good. Gandi do them too (at a slightly higher cost) and are the fastest method for me, though this may be because I have all my domains there already: https://www.gandi.net/ssl/standard?currency=USD#single https://www.gandi.net/ssl/standard?currency=USD#single Don't waste hours chasing down free certificates when paid ones are so cheap now. Use Let's Encrypt only if you need lots of certificates and the paid options become prohibitively high.

cm2187 11y ago

I will wait for IIS integration before using let's encrypt. Everything I have seen so far doesn't suggest simplicity.

Laforet 11y ago
https://github.com/Lone-Coder/letsencrypt-win-simple/wiki https://github.com/Lone-Coder/letsencrypt-win-simple/wiki Not perfect but seems to work fine.

Tepix 11y ago

These alternatives don't offer S/MIME certificates, do they?

josteink 11y ago

> There's really not much reason to use StartSSL now that Let's Encrypt Have you tried using it? On every domain I've tried to obtain a cert it has failed. For me StartSSL may be suboptimal, but at least it works, which is more than I can say for Letsencrypt in its current state.

icebraining 11y ago
What client did you use? acme-tiny has been flawless for me, though it's more manual than the main client. https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Well, if you are some kind of openssl master, acme-tiny is flawless. In practice, for most people, reserve a few hours for your first deployment. After you got a script that calls openssl right, it's fast to adapt for other domains, but the first time is hard.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Why do you have to be a master? Just copy-paste the commands given in the README of the repo, replacing the domain for your own.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Well, at least on my computer, they were mostly broken.
  - garblegarble 11y ago
    I use https://github.com/lukas2511/letsencrypt.sh https://github.com/lukas2511/letsencrypt.sh and it handles all the openssl stuff for you, I've found it to be really nice and light-weight. You just give it a directory to put the ACME challenge files in and a list of your domains

pluma 11y ago

Except for third-party services you need to provide your own SSL certificates for. AFAIK there's no way to automate renewing the certificate you use for GitHost (with a custom domain), for example.