4 ms·

Actually, it's not necessarily a great thing. Issuing certificates cost money and has to be paid one way or another. Having one very dominant CA -- even if it's

by ivanr 9y ago

Actually, it's not necessarily a great thing. Issuing certificates cost money and has to be paid one way or another. Having one very dominant CA -- even if it's free -- is not healthy long term. We need competition in this space.

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
The cost of issuing domain-validated certificates is negligible - there's no reason they couldn't be done for free and paid through advertising or other long-tail revenue sources (or in LetsEncrypt's case: donations and endowment).
snakeanus 9y ago
I believe that it would be better if all CAs disappeared and a new system such as public-keys-as-urls/hashes-as-urls (like tor/i2p/gnunet/etc) or a web-of-trust based solution was adopted. > Issuing certificates cost money Making a post on HN probably costs more money than issuing certificates.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Even if you're not using a proper PKI, you still have to trust someone at the end of the day to not be lying to you. That's ostensibly the point behind CAs and auditing and trust roots. LE's probably the best we're going to get for a long time. Mozilla's one of the few groups I'd go so far as to say is completely benevolent, and LE is being operated as a public service.
Kadin 9y ago
> Issuing certificates cost money and has to be paid one way or another. It's not clear that the prices being charged by commercial CAs are anywhere close or even related to the underlying costs. I think LE is beginning to demonstrate that the costs of operating a CA are not actually that high, at the same time that the lax behavior by certain commercial CAs has demonstrated that the "validation" they provide is of very little value.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Most of the cost tied up in being a CA is being audited and reaudited by a third party that charges hundreds of thousands of dollars (and given the Symantec/Startcom shenanigans, is completely worthless). The actual technical infrastructure required, while intricate, isn't that hard to set up.

by ivanr 9y ago

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago

The cost of issuing domain-validated certificates is negligible - there's no reason they couldn't be done for free and paid through advertising or other long-tail revenue sources (or in LetsEncrypt's case: donations and endowment).

snakeanus 9y ago

I believe that it would be better if all CAs disappeared and a new system such as public-keys-as-urls/hashes-as-urls (like tor/i2p/gnunet/etc) or a web-of-trust based solution was adopted. > Issuing certificates cost money Making a post on HN probably costs more money than issuing certificates.

Karunamon 9y ago
Even if you're not using a proper PKI, you still have to trust someone at the end of the day to not be lying to you. That's ostensibly the point behind CAs and auditing and trust roots. LE's probably the best we're going to get for a long time. Mozilla's one of the few groups I'd go so far as to say is completely benevolent, and LE is being operated as a public service.

Kadin 9y ago

> Issuing certificates cost money and has to be paid one way or another. It's not clear that the prices being charged by commercial CAs are anywhere close or even related to the underlying costs. I think LE is beginning to demonstrate that the costs of operating a CA are not actually that high, at the same time that the lax behavior by certain commercial CAs has demonstrated that the "validation" they provide is of very little value.

Karunamon 9y ago
Most of the cost tied up in being a CA is being audited and reaudited by a third party that charges hundreds of thousands of dollars (and given the Symantec/Startcom shenanigans, is completely worthless). The actual technical infrastructure required, while intricate, isn't that hard to set up.