5 ms·

I have deep concerns about the development to criminalize and ban non-https web sites from functioning in mainstream web browsers. Many flee to Letsencrypt cert

I have deep concerns about the development to criminalize and ban non-https web sites from functioning in mainstream web browsers. Many flee to Letsencrypt certificates which have a short TTL frame. What if Letsencrypt gets bought by Google / Microsoft and the free lunch is over? The end of the free web as we know it... ?

sschueller 7y ago
I am also concerned about the centralisation of everyone going to Let's encrypt. Yes they are non-profit but they are located in the United States and must follow US laws.
- cpach 7y ago
  Anyone could launch LE2 outside of US. All the protocols are open. You need some capital though.
  - darkwater 7y ago
    And some already trusted CA to cross-sign your certificate...
    - cpach 7y ago
      That is not strictly required though. LE did this in order to speed up the rollout but you can also skip that step and submit the root CA to the appropriate places, e.g. Mozillaʼs CA Certificate Program.
      - darkwater 7y ago
        And then you lose all the older browser installations... There was a reason if LE went the way they went and basically it is retro-compatibility. Anyway I'm not arguing that it would be impossible to create an LE2 but it would not be that simple. Especially if the buyer is someone already in the certificates business that wants to destroy the "free-for-all" concept.
        GuyPostington 7y ago
        To help produce an LE2, please contribute to https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone
- user1980 7y ago
  Too big to fail: It's not just for banks any more. If LE is compromised a few times and some fraudulent facebook.com or google.com certs leak out, how long before Firefox/Chrome/Edge blacklist their root cert like they did with Symantec[1], and end up breaking half the internet? I understand that ACME is an open standard, but can someone point me to an alternative ACME provider that isn't "please call us for a quote" enterprise-grade? [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/03/12/distrust-symantec-tls-certificates/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/03/12/distrust-symant...
  - move-on-by 7y ago
    Seems like a reasonable fear, but it is mitigated by short certificate lifespans. Symantec was much more painful to distrust due to multi-year certificate lengths.
nickik 7y ago
ISRG is a California public benefit corporation, and is recognized by the IRS as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our EIN is 46-3344200. And the protocol to talk to LetEncrypt is open, if LetEncrypt turned evil, you could go to other providers without updating your overall process.
- zie 7y ago
  Are there any other TLS cert providers that currently talk ACME? I'm not aware of any.
  - rascul 7y ago
    Wikipedia lists some. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Certificate_Management_Environment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Certificate_Manage...
fulafel 7y ago
It all depends on what root CAs the major browsers ship with. If browser vendors consider it good to have free certs available, like they seem to, then EFF/Mozilla/etc could start a "Let's Encrypt II" in case something happened to them.
- GuyPostington 7y ago
  You could help too if you choose to contribute to this project! https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone
CKN23-ARIN 7y ago
Fun fact: LetsEncrypt cost $3.6M to operate in 2019.
- cpach 7y ago
  IMO that’s a very modest sum considering what it does. LE scales extremely well.
- PedroBatista 7y ago
  My question is: who pays for the whole party and more importantly will they continue to pay?
  - cpach 7y ago
    You can find that info here: https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/ https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/ Why wouldn’t they continue to pay? Hint: Presumably the sponsors feel that they get something more than only goodwill for their donations.
    - klohto 7y ago
      Just a rough estimate: 7x Platinum $350k/y = 2,450M 2x Gold $150k/y = 300k 73x Silver $40k/y (vary depending on # of employees) = 2,920M In total, LE receives over $5.5M a year. I think they are covered
      - jaas 7y ago
        This math is off because the vast majority of Silver sponsors are at $10k, and some of the sponsors at all levels are in-kind, meaning we get something other than cash from them. In 2019 we spent $3.35M in cash (we came in a little under our projected budget of $3.6M). We raised $3.82M in cash between sponsors, grants, and individual giving.
        dlgeek 7y ago
        (For those who aren't aware, parent is the executive director of LE).
moralestapia 7y ago
>It won't happen man, don't worry ;) Fast forward a few years, ICANN v2.0
- cpach 7y ago
  It could happen. Or maybe it won’t. We’ll see.
- profmonocle 7y ago
  ICANN is a natural monopoly because DNS was designed to have a single, central authority. Switching to a new DNS root without ICANN's cooperation would be a monumental task, and they know it. But setting up a new CA, while expensive and time consuming, is very doable. If Let's Encrypt somehow became as corrupt as ICANN, there'd be incentive for some organization to create an alternative.
buboard 7y ago
Lets hope that SSL certs will only be a temporary solution. Why can't we switch to a system that doesn't depend on central authority? In the meantime, it would be nice for letsencrypt to pledge not to take big donations from corporates.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  You can use self-signed SSL, it's essentially TOFU. Or install a local cert authority on your own machines.
- yrro 7y ago
  Tis a shame web browsers are only able to use Kerberos to authenticate connections and not additionally to provide confidentiality and protect the integrity of the communications channel. Certificates are pain in the arse and it depresses me that we still don't have a way to deal with compromised private keys.
- Spivak 7y ago
  > pledge not to take big donations from corporates You mean the people who actually benefit financially from the service? Look, I get the sentiment but this is a case where the incentives are remarkably aligned. Companies that derive real business value from the service foot the bill while the rest of the world gets free certs.
  - buboard 7y ago
    oops i mean big corporates, like, major companies throwing millions at them
simias 7y ago
I'm not too worried. If SSL becomes mandatory and no cheap/free solution is available there'll be a very strong incentive to build a new CA doing what Let's Encrypt does to replace it. Then it's "just" about getting browsers to trust the new CA and at this point I think the main threat is the Chrome monopoly, not Google buying Let's Encrypt. After all the CA system is effectively decentralized.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >there'll be a very strong incentive A $0 incentive, to be specific.
- dwild 7y ago
  > Then it's "just" about getting browsers to trust the new CA and at this point I think the main threat is the Chrome monopoly, not Google buying Let's Encrypt. Even for Let's Encrypt it took 3 years before they were comfortable to abandon the IdenTrust cross signed certificate, and they won't even do it until July 2020, so a whole 5 years. That's from a very popular NPO supported by many corporation.
abjKT26nO8 7y ago
This is just a symptom. The underlying problem is the whole model of the SSL PKI. To quote Ivan Ristic's Bulletproof SSL and TLS: > There’s an inherent flaw in how Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) operates today: any CA is able to issue certificates for any name without having to seek approval from the domain name owner. It seems incredible that this system, which has been in use for about 20 years now, essentially relies on everyone—hundreds of entities and thousands of people—doing the right thing. My hope is that in time we will move to something like DANE[1]. [1]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS-based_Authentication_of_Na...

sschueller 7y ago

I am also concerned about the centralisation of everyone going to Let's encrypt. Yes they are non-profit but they are located in the United States and must follow US laws.

cpach 7y ago
Anyone could launch LE2 outside of US. All the protocols are open. You need some capital though.
- darkwater 7y ago
  And some already trusted CA to cross-sign your certificate...
  - cpach 7y ago
    That is not strictly required though. LE did this in order to speed up the rollout but you can also skip that step and submit the root CA to the appropriate places, e.g. Mozillaʼs CA Certificate Program.
    - darkwater 7y ago
      And then you lose all the older browser installations... There was a reason if LE went the way they went and basically it is retro-compatibility. Anyway I'm not arguing that it would be impossible to create an LE2 but it would not be that simple. Especially if the buyer is someone already in the certificates business that wants to destroy the "free-for-all" concept.
      - GuyPostington 7y ago
        To help produce an LE2, please contribute to https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone
user1980 7y ago
Too big to fail: It's not just for banks any more. If LE is compromised a few times and some fraudulent facebook.com or google.com certs leak out, how long before Firefox/Chrome/Edge blacklist their root cert like they did with Symantec[1], and end up breaking half the internet? I understand that ACME is an open standard, but can someone point me to an alternative ACME provider that isn't "please call us for a quote" enterprise-grade? [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/03/12/distrust-symantec-tls-certificates/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/03/12/distrust-symant...
- move-on-by 7y ago
  Seems like a reasonable fear, but it is mitigated by short certificate lifespans. Symantec was much more painful to distrust due to multi-year certificate lengths.

nickik 7y ago

ISRG is a California public benefit corporation, and is recognized by the IRS as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our EIN is 46-3344200. And the protocol to talk to LetEncrypt is open, if LetEncrypt turned evil, you could go to other providers without updating your overall process.

zie 7y ago
Are there any other TLS cert providers that currently talk ACME? I'm not aware of any.
- rascul 7y ago
  Wikipedia lists some. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Certificate_Management_Environment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Certificate_Manage...

fulafel 7y ago

It all depends on what root CAs the major browsers ship with. If browser vendors consider it good to have free certs available, like they seem to, then EFF/Mozilla/etc could start a "Let's Encrypt II" in case something happened to them.

GuyPostington 7y ago
You could help too if you choose to contribute to this project! https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone https://github.com/tdelmas/Let-s-Clone

CKN23-ARIN 7y ago

Fun fact: LetsEncrypt cost $3.6M to operate in 2019.

cpach 7y ago
IMO that’s a very modest sum considering what it does. LE scales extremely well.
PedroBatista 7y ago
My question is: who pays for the whole party and more importantly will they continue to pay?
- cpach 7y ago
  You can find that info here: https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/ https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/ Why wouldn’t they continue to pay? Hint: Presumably the sponsors feel that they get something more than only goodwill for their donations.
  - klohto 7y ago
    Just a rough estimate: 7x Platinum $350k/y = 2,450M 2x Gold $150k/y = 300k 73x Silver $40k/y (vary depending on # of employees) = 2,920M In total, LE receives over $5.5M a year. I think they are covered
    - jaas 7y ago
      This math is off because the vast majority of Silver sponsors are at $10k, and some of the sponsors at all levels are in-kind, meaning we get something other than cash from them. In 2019 we spent $3.35M in cash (we came in a little under our projected budget of $3.6M). We raised $3.82M in cash between sponsors, grants, and individual giving.
      - dlgeek 7y ago
        (For those who aren't aware, parent is the executive director of LE).

moralestapia 7y ago

>It won't happen man, don't worry ;) Fast forward a few years, ICANN v2.0

cpach 7y ago
It could happen. Or maybe it won’t. We’ll see.
profmonocle 7y ago
ICANN is a natural monopoly because DNS was designed to have a single, central authority. Switching to a new DNS root without ICANN's cooperation would be a monumental task, and they know it. But setting up a new CA, while expensive and time consuming, is very doable. If Let's Encrypt somehow became as corrupt as ICANN, there'd be incentive for some organization to create an alternative.

buboard 7y ago

Lets hope that SSL certs will only be a temporary solution. Why can't we switch to a system that doesn't depend on central authority? In the meantime, it would be nice for letsencrypt to pledge not to take big donations from corporates.

zozbot234 7y ago
You can use self-signed SSL, it's essentially TOFU. Or install a local cert authority on your own machines.
yrro 7y ago
Tis a shame web browsers are only able to use Kerberos to authenticate connections and not additionally to provide confidentiality and protect the integrity of the communications channel. Certificates are pain in the arse and it depresses me that we still don't have a way to deal with compromised private keys.
Spivak 7y ago
> pledge not to take big donations from corporates You mean the people who actually benefit financially from the service? Look, I get the sentiment but this is a case where the incentives are remarkably aligned. Companies that derive real business value from the service foot the bill while the rest of the world gets free certs.
- buboard 7y ago
  oops i mean big corporates, like, major companies throwing millions at them

simias 7y ago

I'm not too worried. If SSL becomes mandatory and no cheap/free solution is available there'll be a very strong incentive to build a new CA doing what Let's Encrypt does to replace it. Then it's "just" about getting browsers to trust the new CA and at this point I think the main threat is the Chrome monopoly, not Google buying Let's Encrypt. After all the CA system is effectively decentralized.

whatshisface 7y ago
>there'll be a very strong incentive A $0 incentive, to be specific.
dwild 7y ago
> Then it's "just" about getting browsers to trust the new CA and at this point I think the main threat is the Chrome monopoly, not Google buying Let's Encrypt. Even for Let's Encrypt it took 3 years before they were comfortable to abandon the IdenTrust cross signed certificate, and they won't even do it until July 2020, so a whole 5 years. That's from a very popular NPO supported by many corporation.

abjKT26nO8 7y ago

This is just a symptom. The underlying problem is the whole model of the SSL PKI. To quote Ivan Ristic's Bulletproof SSL and TLS: > There’s an inherent flaw in how Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) operates today: any CA is able to issue certificates for any name without having to seek approval from the domain name owner. It seems incredible that this system, which has been in use for about 20 years now, essentially relies on everyone—hundreds of entities and thousands of people—doing the right thing. My hope is that in time we will move to something like DANE[1]. [1]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS-based_Authentication_of_Named_Entities> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS-based_Authentication_of_Na...