7 ms·

Do you know why I don't use TLS? Because getting a certificate is almost impossible for me and definitely not worth the hassle. I live in Iran, which as you may

Do you know why I don't use TLS? Because getting a certificate is almost impossible for me and definitely not worth the hassle. I live in Iran, which as you may know is subject to financial and technological sanctions. It makes it impractical for us to buy anything from foreign countries because: 1. Because of the financial sanctions, it's nearly impossible to send money abroad. We can't have a wire transfer from our bank account to another country. We can't open an account in a foreign bank. We can't get an international credit card or open a PayPal account (as a matter of fact, PayPal has banned Iranian IPs. We can't even open the website). 2. Even if we somehow manage to send the money, we cannot expect a reliable service. More than once have tech companies, especially hosting providers, closed the account of all Iranian customers citing regulations. We try to stick to .ir domains or at least have one as fail-safe, use primarily Iranian hosting providers despite their much higher prices and avoid relying on foreign services at any cost. I've seen here on HN that some people say cost is not prohibitive in adoption of TLS. It's only <single digit number> dollars on <CA name> after all. The cost is not the problem here. The act of paying is a barrier to entry for many people. That's why my university has a supercomputer, but you'll get an SSL error when you visit its website because it's self-signed.

danbee 12y ago
StartSSL offers free class 1 certificates. Don't know if that's any use to you.
- smnrchrds 12y ago
  I'm aware of that, but because revoking the certificate is not free, it would be impossible for us to do. Not very good security-wise.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    If you are not capable of affording at least a cheap-almost-free ssl cert in order to protect your site's users, and given your site actually requires SSL (such as secure account login, transactions, etc) you probably should not be running the site. SSL certs can be found for $1.99 per year sometimes from companies (that's cheaper than it costs to run your server). Sure they are not the "name brand" ssl certs like from Verisign that cost $300 a year -- but to a browser, SSL is SSL (so long as the browser recognizes the trust chain). If your country prohibits SSL's use -- then you really should consider not hosting your site from within your country. Security is not a joke.
    - zampano 12y ago
      I don't think he was saying he couldn't pay because he couldn't afford to pay, I think he was saying he couldn't pay because he doesn't have the option of paying with the economic sanctions against Iran.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        That does not change the spirit of my comment. If your server requires SSL due to security reasons, and you are not capable of using SSL for one reason or another, then I'd rather you don't run that server at all. Besides, if it's not an cost-prohibitive problem, but rather one can't get an SSL cert due to sanctions, etc... well, that argument doesn't hold water either. Not every country holds sanctions against Iran for example. You may not be able to get an SSL cert from a USA company, but there are many other countries who have CA's available that probably have no sanctions. In the end, security is not a joke. If your server requires itself to be secure, you'd better do it.
    - JohnTHaller 12y ago
      smnrchrds isn't saying they don't have the money to pay for it. They're saying they can't pay for it. Because they're in Iran, they can't get PayPal, a foreign credit card, etc. So, while they could get this SSL for free, it would be a security risk for them since they'd be unable to revoke it if it were compromised because they have no way to carry out the transaction.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - Alupis 12y ago
        Most countries have operating CA's... and not every country has sanctions imposed against Iran -- so it is possible to get a cert even if you live in Iran.
        JohnTHaller 12y ago
        I'd wager smnrchrds has tried that route as well. I'd also wager that most countries with CAs accepted worldwide likely obey the UN ratified Iran sanctions. So, unless you can suggest a specific CA that is accepted by most browsers that is headquartered in a country that does not obey the UN ratified sacntions against Iran, this discussion is moot.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  They're only usable for non-commercial purposes. So for an *.ir business, it remains problematic.
- dspillett 12y ago
  Though be wary of the "non commercial use" clause on the free certificates. I have no idea how, or indeed if, they enforce that (revoking the certificate if they find you using it for commercial purposes?) but it is there.
- cnst 12y ago
  > StartSSL offers free class 1 certificates. Don't know if that's any use to you. No, that doesn't work. 0. Once you go https, you're basically hooked. What if StartSSL stops offering free certs tomorrow? They've been offering free certs for ages now, yet still have no competition! So much for the free market. 1. What if you have a good dozen of different domains? The cheapest multidomain certificates seem to start 50$+/domain/year, that's a pretty hefty price tag for non-commercial projects. We need something like STARTTLS in smtp/xmpp/etc for http, which just protects the traffic from eavesdropping and passive attacks. Because right now as it is, from the user's experience, having a self-signed https is WORSE than not having any https at all. Do you get any warnings on http web-sites? What about self-signed https? WTF? I don't live in Iran, but I completely agree with the OP that TLS is not ready yet, by not being affordable and dependable. I'll adopt TLS for http as soon as, (1), I can guarantee that existing users won't suffer, (2), I won't be required to update certificates all the time (when was the last time you've updated your ssh certs?), (3), I won't be required to pay hundreds/thousands of dollars (per year) to secure all my domains.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    You do know TLS and SSL can be on the same server? In fact, if you are on a modern browser, look at the SSL cert HN is using -- it should show you are using TLS 1.2. -- so no users "suffer". Some SSL certs have become bloated in price (without good reason), such as the VeriSign certs, etc. No SSL cert should cost $300 a year... that's absurd. However, they can't be free... someone has to pay for the infrastructure that not only signs certs, but provides the trust backbone that SSL rides on.
    - cnst 12y ago
      > In fact, if you are on a modern browser, look at the SSL cert HN is using -- it should show you are using TLS 1.2. -- so no users "suffer". No, once you go SNI and people start sharing https links, you basically cut off all users who have older browsers. Which is complete bullshit -- they should just be getting the non-encrypted web-site, just like what happens with smtp and STARTTLS. > No SSL cert should cost $300 a year Yet you won't find a cert for a dozen different domains cheaper than 600$/year. And what if you want to wildcard each of those domains, too? > someone has to pay for the infrastructure that not only signs certs, but provides the trust backbone that SSL rides on. And I should care about the trust backbone for my personal web-site and non-commercial projects why exactly?
castorio 12y ago
self-signed is as good as CA-based from a security-POV. it's just that the browsers complain.
- Nursie 12y ago
  It absolutely is not. With CA based you have an existing trust relationship to build on. It may be a flawed one but it is there. Asking a client to accept self-signed is asking for a MITM attack.
  - castorio 12y ago
    using the CA-model in its current way doesnt protect you from MITM either. diginotar anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar
    - Someone1234 12y ago
      It absolutely does protect you from MitM. Does it offer full proof protection? No. But it adds a barrier between you and being trivially hit with a MitM. To use an analogy: One could make the statement that a kevlar vest doesn't protect you from bullets, then cite an example when a military grade round went through one and killed a cop. However this statement would be equally misleading to yours, as we all know a kevlar vest is better than nothing and that it will stop a typical street bullet (e.g. handgun round).
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    The likelihood of any one user to be the target of a MITM is vanishingly small. Once that certificate has been accepted, they will be notified if it changes anyways. Furthermore, the "trust relationship" between a user and a CA is based on nothing more than the CA's sayso. Do you personally trust every cert that your browser does? What about your OS? Trust that they'll never issue a cert they shouldn't? Trust that their operations are secure? And finally, the self signed CA still protects against passive monitoring and eavesdropping, which I'd say is a much more clear and present threat.
y0ghur7_xxx 12y ago
We should really work towards eliminating the need for CAs (or any central authority for that matter). http://convergence.io/ http://convergence.io/ is (was?) a great idea and technical implementation of it, I installed two notaries on two different servers I own, and it worked great. It seems dead now. Don't know why.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Moxie has said they are waiting on browsers to implement TACK.io, but not entirely sure why tack is needed for Convergence.
  - sedachv 12y ago
    TACK is supposed to be a backwards-compatible standard, Convergence is a replacement.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  In theory DNSSEC should replace the CAs for domain validated certificates. The problem is that most clients don't support it (and there are currently some nontrivial reasons for that). What would be great is if somebody (I'm looking at you, Google or Mozilla) with the clout to get their CA cert trusted could set up a free website that would validate DNS TLSA records with DNSSEC (or DNSCurve if you like) and then automatically sign the certificate from the DNS record with the CA key. That should be at least as secure as domain validation with email, and a lot easier to do. Then you could put that cert on your server and use it for all the clients that don't support DNSSEC, and relegate DNSSEC and all its problems to just providing strong proof to the CA that it's signing the right certificate. Combine that with certificate pinning and it should pretty well solve the problem, and leave CAs to the job they should have had all along, which is providing extended validation certificates for banks and the like.
  - y0ghur7_xxx 12y ago
    > In theory DNSSEC should replace the CAs for domain validated certificates. DNSSEC still has a central trust anchor that signs the records. Convergence is completely distributed.
higherpurpose 12y ago
You should create .dns or .bit domains and encourage Iranian users to use DNSchain servers for DNS: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain
comex 12y ago
Not that it's as good a solution as replacing the CA system, but you could try mining one of the cryptocurrencies (not Bitcoin, since it's dominated by ASICs) on a GPU - I guess at significant loss compared to the cost of electricity these days, but allowing you to get a little money without having to deal with financial regulations. And then buy services anonymously through Tor.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mrb 12y ago
Financial sanctions? Buy a certificate from Namecheap and pay using Bitcoin (yes they officially accept it!) In Iran, you can obtain coins through https://localbitcoins.com/country/IR https://localbitcoins.com/country/IR or http://www.coinava.com/ http://www.coinava.com/ This is a very concrete example demonstrating how Bitcoin is resistant against censorship, sanctions, etc.
- _delirium 12y ago
  Wouldn't Namecheap still refuse the transaction? Afaict, Namecheap is a U.S.-based company, and would be violating the law if they did business with an Iran-based company (regardless of the medium of payment).
wyager 12y ago
It's worth pointing out that we have viable technical solutions to Zooko's triangle (allowing for secure, decentralized, human-friendly web security). I hope sooner or later, solutions like namecoin are actually widely implemented.

danbee 12y ago

StartSSL offers free class 1 certificates. Don't know if that's any use to you.

smnrchrds 12y ago
I'm aware of that, but because revoking the certificate is not free, it would be impossible for us to do. Not very good security-wise.
- Alupis 12y ago
  If you are not capable of affording at least a cheap-almost-free ssl cert in order to protect your site's users, and given your site actually requires SSL (such as secure account login, transactions, etc) you probably should not be running the site. SSL certs can be found for $1.99 per year sometimes from companies (that's cheaper than it costs to run your server). Sure they are not the "name brand" ssl certs like from Verisign that cost $300 a year -- but to a browser, SSL is SSL (so long as the browser recognizes the trust chain). If your country prohibits SSL's use -- then you really should consider not hosting your site from within your country. Security is not a joke.
  - zampano 12y ago
    I don't think he was saying he couldn't pay because he couldn't afford to pay, I think he was saying he couldn't pay because he doesn't have the option of paying with the economic sanctions against Iran.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      That does not change the spirit of my comment. If your server requires SSL due to security reasons, and you are not capable of using SSL for one reason or another, then I'd rather you don't run that server at all. Besides, if it's not an cost-prohibitive problem, but rather one can't get an SSL cert due to sanctions, etc... well, that argument doesn't hold water either. Not every country holds sanctions against Iran for example. You may not be able to get an SSL cert from a USA company, but there are many other countries who have CA's available that probably have no sanctions. In the end, security is not a joke. If your server requires itself to be secure, you'd better do it.
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    smnrchrds isn't saying they don't have the money to pay for it. They're saying they can't pay for it. Because they're in Iran, they can't get PayPal, a foreign credit card, etc. So, while they could get this SSL for free, it would be a security risk for them since they'd be unable to revoke it if it were compromised because they have no way to carry out the transaction.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - Alupis 12y ago
      Most countries have operating CA's... and not every country has sanctions imposed against Iran -- so it is possible to get a cert even if you live in Iran.
      - JohnTHaller 12y ago
        I'd wager smnrchrds has tried that route as well. I'd also wager that most countries with CAs accepted worldwide likely obey the UN ratified Iran sanctions. So, unless you can suggest a specific CA that is accepted by most browsers that is headquartered in a country that does not obey the UN ratified sacntions against Iran, this discussion is moot.
Someone1234 12y ago
They're only usable for non-commercial purposes. So for an *.ir business, it remains problematic.
dspillett 12y ago
Though be wary of the "non commercial use" clause on the free certificates. I have no idea how, or indeed if, they enforce that (revoking the certificate if they find you using it for commercial purposes?) but it is there.
cnst 12y ago
> StartSSL offers free class 1 certificates. Don't know if that's any use to you. No, that doesn't work. 0. Once you go https, you're basically hooked. What if StartSSL stops offering free certs tomorrow? They've been offering free certs for ages now, yet still have no competition! So much for the free market. 1. What if you have a good dozen of different domains? The cheapest multidomain certificates seem to start 50$+/domain/year, that's a pretty hefty price tag for non-commercial projects. We need something like STARTTLS in smtp/xmpp/etc for http, which just protects the traffic from eavesdropping and passive attacks. Because right now as it is, from the user's experience, having a self-signed https is WORSE than not having any https at all. Do you get any warnings on http web-sites? What about self-signed https? WTF? I don't live in Iran, but I completely agree with the OP that TLS is not ready yet, by not being affordable and dependable. I'll adopt TLS for http as soon as, (1), I can guarantee that existing users won't suffer, (2), I won't be required to update certificates all the time (when was the last time you've updated your ssh certs?), (3), I won't be required to pay hundreds/thousands of dollars (per year) to secure all my domains.
- Alupis 12y ago
  You do know TLS and SSL can be on the same server? In fact, if you are on a modern browser, look at the SSL cert HN is using -- it should show you are using TLS 1.2. -- so no users "suffer". Some SSL certs have become bloated in price (without good reason), such as the VeriSign certs, etc. No SSL cert should cost $300 a year... that's absurd. However, they can't be free... someone has to pay for the infrastructure that not only signs certs, but provides the trust backbone that SSL rides on.
  - cnst 12y ago
    > In fact, if you are on a modern browser, look at the SSL cert HN is using -- it should show you are using TLS 1.2. -- so no users "suffer". No, once you go SNI and people start sharing https links, you basically cut off all users who have older browsers. Which is complete bullshit -- they should just be getting the non-encrypted web-site, just like what happens with smtp and STARTTLS. > No SSL cert should cost $300 a year Yet you won't find a cert for a dozen different domains cheaper than 600$/year. And what if you want to wildcard each of those domains, too? > someone has to pay for the infrastructure that not only signs certs, but provides the trust backbone that SSL rides on. And I should care about the trust backbone for my personal web-site and non-commercial projects why exactly?

castorio 12y ago

self-signed is as good as CA-based from a security-POV. it's just that the browsers complain.

Nursie 12y ago
It absolutely is not. With CA based you have an existing trust relationship to build on. It may be a flawed one but it is there. Asking a client to accept self-signed is asking for a MITM attack.
- castorio 12y ago
  using the CA-model in its current way doesnt protect you from MITM either. diginotar anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    It absolutely does protect you from MitM. Does it offer full proof protection? No. But it adds a barrier between you and being trivially hit with a MitM. To use an analogy: One could make the statement that a kevlar vest doesn't protect you from bullets, then cite an example when a military grade round went through one and killed a cop. However this statement would be equally misleading to yours, as we all know a kevlar vest is better than nothing and that it will stop a typical street bullet (e.g. handgun round).
- Karunamon 12y ago
  The likelihood of any one user to be the target of a MITM is vanishingly small. Once that certificate has been accepted, they will be notified if it changes anyways. Furthermore, the "trust relationship" between a user and a CA is based on nothing more than the CA's sayso. Do you personally trust every cert that your browser does? What about your OS? Trust that they'll never issue a cert they shouldn't? Trust that their operations are secure? And finally, the self signed CA still protects against passive monitoring and eavesdropping, which I'd say is a much more clear and present threat.

y0ghur7_xxx 12y ago

We should really work towards eliminating the need for CAs (or any central authority for that matter). http://convergence.io/ http://convergence.io/ is (was?) a great idea and technical implementation of it, I installed two notaries on two different servers I own, and it worked great. It seems dead now. Don't know why.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Moxie has said they are waiting on browsers to implement TACK.io, but not entirely sure why tack is needed for Convergence.
- sedachv 12y ago
  TACK is supposed to be a backwards-compatible standard, Convergence is a replacement.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
In theory DNSSEC should replace the CAs for domain validated certificates. The problem is that most clients don't support it (and there are currently some nontrivial reasons for that). What would be great is if somebody (I'm looking at you, Google or Mozilla) with the clout to get their CA cert trusted could set up a free website that would validate DNS TLSA records with DNSSEC (or DNSCurve if you like) and then automatically sign the certificate from the DNS record with the CA key. That should be at least as secure as domain validation with email, and a lot easier to do. Then you could put that cert on your server and use it for all the clients that don't support DNSSEC, and relegate DNSSEC and all its problems to just providing strong proof to the CA that it's signing the right certificate. Combine that with certificate pinning and it should pretty well solve the problem, and leave CAs to the job they should have had all along, which is providing extended validation certificates for banks and the like.
- y0ghur7_xxx 12y ago
  > In theory DNSSEC should replace the CAs for domain validated certificates. DNSSEC still has a central trust anchor that signs the records. Convergence is completely distributed.

higherpurpose 12y ago

You should create .dns or .bit domains and encourage Iranian users to use DNSchain servers for DNS: https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain

comex 12y ago

Not that it's as good a solution as replacing the CA system, but you could try mining one of the cryptocurrencies (not Bitcoin, since it's dominated by ASICs) on a GPU - I guess at significant loss compared to the cost of electricity these days, but allowing you to get a little money without having to deal with financial regulations. And then buy services anonymously through Tor.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mrb 12y ago

Financial sanctions? Buy a certificate from Namecheap and pay using Bitcoin (yes they officially accept it!) In Iran, you can obtain coins through https://localbitcoins.com/country/IR https://localbitcoins.com/country/IR or http://www.coinava.com/ http://www.coinava.com/ This is a very concrete example demonstrating how Bitcoin is resistant against censorship, sanctions, etc.

_delirium 12y ago
Wouldn't Namecheap still refuse the transaction? Afaict, Namecheap is a U.S.-based company, and would be violating the law if they did business with an Iran-based company (regardless of the medium of payment).

wyager 12y ago

It's worth pointing out that we have viable technical solutions to Zooko's triangle (allowing for secure, decentralized, human-friendly web security). I hope sooner or later, solutions like namecoin are actually widely implemented.