4 ms·

Can't you sign your own certificates? I honestly haven't done any work with http/3 so it's a sincere question.

superkuh 3y ago
I could. But that wouldn't help make my website visitable for anyone. I'm not trying to access my own hosted site. I want a random person on the other side of the world who I've never met and will never meet to be able to visit my website. That's the point of public websites. Generating my own root cert and using it does not help with this at all since no one else will have it installed nor install it unless I'm already good friends with them. Installing a root cert in the various trust stores is no simple task either. The easier self-sign with no root cert also doesn't help because every current implementation of HTTP/3 does not support self-signed certs.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  I mean you have to do that with https now if you don't go with one of the big guys? How is that any more dangerous to the end user than just going to an http site that they don't know personally? The risks are the same as far as malware.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    >How is that any more dangerous to the end user than just going to an http site that they don't know personally? Installing a random root cert to your trust store is a very dangerous thing to do but you're looking at this from the wrong end. I'm not talking about the dangers of a random user installing a random TLS root cert from me I send them over, what, email? That's just not going to happen. It shouldn't happen. I'm talking about the ability for human persons to host visitable websites without corporate oversight and control. With HTTP/1.1 I can just host a website from my IP and it's good. Anyone can visit. With HTTP/3 before anyone can visit my website I first have to go ask permission every ~90 days from a third party corporation. And if I piss them off (or people who put pressure on them in certain political regions), say by hosting a pdf copy of a scientific journal article, or a list of local abortion clinics, they can revoke my ability to host a visitable website. With HTTP/3, as a human person, the cure is worse than the "disease".
    - remexre 3y ago
      I think they meant, can't a visitor just ignore that your cert is self-signed and view the page anyway, _without_ adding it to the trust store. Firefox, at least, has this as the default "ignore the cert error" action.
      - superkuh 3y ago
        Setting up a root cert in a trust store and accepting a non-root self-sign cert are very different things. That said, "can't a visitor just ignore that your cert is self-signed and view the page anyway," No. They cannot. Not when it's HTTP/3. Even if the browser ostensibly supports it the HTTP/3 connection will fail because the HTTP/3 lib Firefox uses does not allow it.
        paradite 3y ago
        Would that actually help your cause, since it would push people to build and distribute their own user agents which accepts self-signed certs/CA in a user-driven community without big corp oversight?
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        You'd have to get all the major browsers to trust that CA, it's not possible to do that without "corporate oversight". That's the point the other poster is making, it adds a new level of control that becomes the de facto only way to do things if http 1.1 ever gets deprecated. I have no opinion on the likelihood of any such deprecation but I fully understand the concern.
    - joshjje 3y ago
      Thats mainly a problem with the browsers, no? Not saying it isn't an issue, obviously the big ones are going to drive a lot of this technology, but you could still use something like curl or whatever.
    - Macha 3y ago
      And where do you get that IP? From a corporate ISP? From a corporate host? From a politically pressurable entity like your local NIC?
- dark-star 3y ago
  Let's Encrypt and similar services will allow you to do exactly that though...?
ta8645 3y ago
Every visitor would have to manually trust them; provided they're using a browser that still allows them to do so.
- kevincox 3y ago
  This is literally the same as HTTP except that browsers don't (by default yet) put up a scary warning for that. But with a self-signed cert you get protection from passive attackers and once you press yes the first time it verifies if someone else tries to hijack your connection. I think almost all protocols should have always-on encryption. You can choose to validate the other end or not but it is simpler and safer to only have the encrypted option in the protocol. FWIW I have HTTPS-only mode enabled and I would prefer to be notified of insecure connections. To me a self-signed cert is actually better than HTTP. I'm sure it will be a while until HTTPS-only is the default, but it seems clear that browsers are moving in that direction.

I could. But that wouldn't help make my website visitable for anyone. I'm not trying to access my own hosted site. I want a random person on the other side of the world who I've never met and will never meet to be able to visit my website. That's the point of public websites. Generating my own root cert and using it does not help with this at all since no one else will have it installed nor install it unless I'm already good friends with them. Installing a root cert in the various trust stores is no simple task either. The easier self-sign with no root cert also doesn't help because every current implementation of HTTP/3 does not support self-signed certs.

lost_tourist 3y ago
I mean you have to do that with https now if you don't go with one of the big guys? How is that any more dangerous to the end user than just going to an http site that they don't know personally? The risks are the same as far as malware.
- superkuh 3y ago
  >How is that any more dangerous to the end user than just going to an http site that they don't know personally? Installing a random root cert to your trust store is a very dangerous thing to do but you're looking at this from the wrong end. I'm not talking about the dangers of a random user installing a random TLS root cert from me I send them over, what, email? That's just not going to happen. It shouldn't happen. I'm talking about the ability for human persons to host visitable websites without corporate oversight and control. With HTTP/1.1 I can just host a website from my IP and it's good. Anyone can visit. With HTTP/3 before anyone can visit my website I first have to go ask permission every ~90 days from a third party corporation. And if I piss them off (or people who put pressure on them in certain political regions), say by hosting a pdf copy of a scientific journal article, or a list of local abortion clinics, they can revoke my ability to host a visitable website. With HTTP/3, as a human person, the cure is worse than the "disease".
  - remexre 3y ago
    I think they meant, can't a visitor just ignore that your cert is self-signed and view the page anyway, _without_ adding it to the trust store. Firefox, at least, has this as the default "ignore the cert error" action.
    - superkuh 3y ago
      Setting up a root cert in a trust store and accepting a non-root self-sign cert are very different things. That said, "can't a visitor just ignore that your cert is self-signed and view the page anyway," No. They cannot. Not when it's HTTP/3. Even if the browser ostensibly supports it the HTTP/3 connection will fail because the HTTP/3 lib Firefox uses does not allow it.
      - paradite 3y ago
        Would that actually help your cause, since it would push people to build and distribute their own user agents which accepts self-signed certs/CA in a user-driven community without big corp oversight?
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        You'd have to get all the major browsers to trust that CA, it's not possible to do that without "corporate oversight". That's the point the other poster is making, it adds a new level of control that becomes the de facto only way to do things if http 1.1 ever gets deprecated. I have no opinion on the likelihood of any such deprecation but I fully understand the concern.
  - joshjje 3y ago
    Thats mainly a problem with the browsers, no? Not saying it isn't an issue, obviously the big ones are going to drive a lot of this technology, but you could still use something like curl or whatever.
  - Macha 3y ago
    And where do you get that IP? From a corporate ISP? From a corporate host? From a politically pressurable entity like your local NIC?
dark-star 3y ago
Let's Encrypt and similar services will allow you to do exactly that though...?

ta8645 3y ago

Every visitor would have to manually trust them; provided they're using a browser that still allows them to do so.

kevincox 3y ago
This is literally the same as HTTP except that browsers don't (by default yet) put up a scary warning for that. But with a self-signed cert you get protection from passive attackers and once you press yes the first time it verifies if someone else tries to hijack your connection. I think almost all protocols should have always-on encryption. You can choose to validate the other end or not but it is simpler and safer to only have the encrypted option in the protocol. FWIW I have HTTPS-only mode enabled and I would prefer to be notified of insecure connections. To me a self-signed cert is actually better than HTTP. I'm sure it will be a while until HTTPS-only is the default, but it seems clear that browsers are moving in that direction.