6 ms·

Let's Encrypt Developer Preview

141 points by julianj 12y ago

Someone1234 12y ago
This is going to sound super ungrateful but... If they already have the CA stuff ready can they just release that? I don't really care about their auto-magical tool which is meant to reconfigure your server for you. Configuring Apache/IIS etc is not that complex, the only reason I don't have a certificate on my private website is because the certificate costs more than the hosting annually (literally). Plus I'm never going to run this tool even when it is production ready. I don't trust random tools to reconfigure my system, and would prefer to manually follow tutorials so it is easy to undo every change or at least be aware of exactly what changes got made.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  > If they already have the CA stuff ready can they just release that? While I'm sure they have something ready[0], I'm not sure they have a fully-worked-out policy for running it (required to get into certificate chains), or a production deployment of it, or a third-party vulnerability test of it. Additionally, ACME verification is a vaguely complicated protocol which will likely need a tool to sign the various messages involved (or you're going to be looking at munging together OpenSSL commands), and you're looking at the developer preview of that. [0] https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > Plus I'm never going to run this tool even when it is production ready. I don't trust random tools to reconfigure my system, and would prefer to manually follow tutorials so it is easy to undo every change or at least be aware of exactly what changes got made. Agreed. I can already generate and install a certificate (though I wouldn't mind a standalone tool to make that simpler). I'd like some automated process that renews that certificate, or better yet, certificates that don't expire in the first place.
  - benburwell 12y ago
    I'd be happy with automated renewal. Certificates that don't expire seems like a bad idea.
    - JoshTriplett 12y ago
      It makes sense for certificates to expire when domains do (though domain expiry also seems like a bug), but other than that, I think every other use case for expiry is better served by revocation.
      - iancarroll 12y ago
        What if you can't connect to the internet to check? Expiry works better in a lot of other cases, including offline systems with intranet-only access. Without expiry, you can DDoS a revocation server and perform an MiTM with a very weak cert issued 20 years ago (supposing the client accepts it.)
        JoshTriplett 12y ago
        There are several systems for servers to provide "stapled" indications from a CA that a certificate has not been revoked as of a given date. And if you're accessing an offline system on an Intranet, you might want to use a pinned certificate, or a pinned internal CA.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        dingaling 12y ago
        Intranet systems, and those connecting thereto ( e.g. corporate VPN clients ) should really be using only a trusted internal CA with mutual server- client authentication. Probably with hard coded cert signature on each end. For example on our network every user-laptop-service combination has a unique cert. A user can be dropped from, say, accessing IMAP with a single change on the server and without affecting their webmail access. MITM is very difficult in that scenario as the attacker had to compromise both ends.
- btreecat 12y ago
  > because the certificate costs more than the hosting annually (literally). So what you are saying is that because you can get an SSL cert free from startcom, that your hosting provider is paying you? https://www.startssl.com/?app=1 https://www.startssl.com/?app=1
  - JshWright 12y ago
    "Free" if you don't count your time spent dealing with their terrible interface...
  - masklinn 12y ago
    StartSSL's free cert don't support wildcards and the revocation of a cert is $25 per, which can be a problem (it was during Heartbleed). I understand they also have a pretty bad interface and terrible customer service.
    - btreecat 12y ago
      What would you expect if you are not paying for the cert? For me revocation was not an issue. I just got a new cert under a different subdomain as I don't use subdomains on my personal site and the main domain is added as an alt name.
      - masklinn 12y ago
        I don't "expect" anything, I'm giving reasons why startssl might not be an option.
        xorcist 12y ago
        It's quite reasonable pricing. It's less than most CAs does for a one year certificate, and revoking it is more work than issuing it in the first place. They are not without fault, but they've much good for open source project and the like, and don't deserve the bad rap thrown at them in every thread that mentions SSL.
- joshmoz 12y ago
  The CA itself is not ready yet. When it is, you can use the client in a simple mode to grab a certificate and drop it wherever you want, without automated configuration.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  I don't want a tool that I have to run as root and that is going to touch anything in /etc/nginx/. I do want a tool using which I can do something like: $ letsencrypt 'foo.bar.example.com' which would spit out foo.bar.example.com.key, foo.bar.example.com.cert, and foo.bar.example.com.csr. I'd also like to have: $ letsencrypt --renew foo.bar.example.com Which would re-generate all these certs. The main problem for me, just like for you, is that domain validation certs are not free (or at least somehow included in the price of the domain registration). This type of tool solves that. If, on top of this tool, we also get something that lets a person new to ops autogenerate or even autodeploy an nginx vhost with TLS/SPDY support, awesome! But the ability to generate and renew certs from the command line, for free, is what I want and probably what you want too.
  - amenghra 12y ago
    I totally agree. You would however need to somehow authenticate that you own foo.bar.example.com (code in email, host something under foo.bar.example.com, a TXT record, etc.).
    - notatoad 12y ago
      The tool shouldn't need root access to /etc/nfinx (or whatever your config Dir of choice is) to authenticate your ownership of a domain.
      - thristian 12y ago
        The tool doesn't care about your ownership of the domain, it cares about whether the host it's running on is trusted by the owner of the domain. The simplest way to verify that is for the CA to tell the tool "serve up this nonce value at this randomly-generated URL", and then to request that URL and see if it gets the right value. Depending on exactly what proof the CA wants, that will probably require some kind of tinkering with the webserver's config, or at least inspecting it to figure out how to fulfil the CA's request. Hopefully there'll be a fallback mechanism that tells the sysad what to configure, if only because not every webserver in the world is Apache or nginx.
flecno 12y ago
You should really see http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6397_-_en_-_saal_6_-_201412301400_-_let_s_encrypt_-_seth_schoen.html#video http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6397_-_en_-_...
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Thank you. This was a really informative, excellent talk.
IgorPartola 12y ago
Does anyone know whether this initiative will provide wildcard certs? Or will this be restricted to single domain certs?
- grey-area 12y ago
  Single domain only, at least initially.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  They will do multi-domain certs, but no wild cards. Also, you can reissue certs with added SANs
hrjet 12y ago
I was looking at the how it works[1] article but it isn't clear to me how the domain is validated. Couldn't an MITM between the LetsEcnrypt service and the example.com server request a certificate, then respond to the challenge, and then use that certificate later? Getting a certificate from StartSSL was similar. The only difference was that there was a human involved in the loop (a mail is sent and the user has to copy paste the contents of the email), but in essence, both the services seem vulnerable. This seems to be an unsolvable bootstrapping problem, unless some sort of physical verification is done. What am I missing? [1]: https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/ https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/
- vertex-four 12y ago
  The protocol asserts that you have control over the domain, and over a machine that can be accessed at the domain's A record. If you can make your machine appear to be at google.com from the perspective of LetsEncrypt for the duration of the request process, you can get a cert from them. This is standard for all domain-validation-only certificate authorities, i.e. the cheapest cert you can get from any given company.

141 points by julianj 12y ago

This is going to sound super ungrateful but... If they already have the CA stuff ready can they just release that? I don't really care about their auto-magical tool which is meant to reconfigure your server for you. Configuring Apache/IIS etc is not that complex, the only reason I don't have a certificate on my private website is because the certificate costs more than the hosting annually (literally). Plus I'm never going to run this tool even when it is production ready. I don't trust random tools to reconfigure my system, and would prefer to manually follow tutorials so it is easy to undo every change or at least be aware of exactly what changes got made.

vertex-four 12y ago
> If they already have the CA stuff ready can they just release that? While I'm sure they have something ready[0], I'm not sure they have a fully-worked-out policy for running it (required to get into certificate chains), or a production deployment of it, or a third-party vulnerability test of it. Additionally, ACME verification is a vaguely complicated protocol which will likely need a tool to sign the various messages involved (or you're going to be looking at munging together OpenSSL commands), and you're looking at the developer preview of that. [0] https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> Plus I'm never going to run this tool even when it is production ready. I don't trust random tools to reconfigure my system, and would prefer to manually follow tutorials so it is easy to undo every change or at least be aware of exactly what changes got made. Agreed. I can already generate and install a certificate (though I wouldn't mind a standalone tool to make that simpler). I'd like some automated process that renews that certificate, or better yet, certificates that don't expire in the first place.
- benburwell 12y ago
  I'd be happy with automated renewal. Certificates that don't expire seems like a bad idea.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    It makes sense for certificates to expire when domains do (though domain expiry also seems like a bug), but other than that, I think every other use case for expiry is better served by revocation.
    - iancarroll 12y ago
      What if you can't connect to the internet to check? Expiry works better in a lot of other cases, including offline systems with intranet-only access. Without expiry, you can DDoS a revocation server and perform an MiTM with a very weak cert issued 20 years ago (supposing the client accepts it.)
      - JoshTriplett 12y ago
        There are several systems for servers to provide "stapled" indications from a CA that a certificate has not been revoked as of a given date. And if you're accessing an offline system on an Intranet, you might want to use a pinned certificate, or a pinned internal CA.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - dingaling 12y ago
        Intranet systems, and those connecting thereto ( e.g. corporate VPN clients ) should really be using only a trusted internal CA with mutual server- client authentication. Probably with hard coded cert signature on each end. For example on our network every user-laptop-service combination has a unique cert. A user can be dropped from, say, accessing IMAP with a single change on the server and without affecting their webmail access. MITM is very difficult in that scenario as the attacker had to compromise both ends.
btreecat 12y ago
> because the certificate costs more than the hosting annually (literally). So what you are saying is that because you can get an SSL cert free from startcom, that your hosting provider is paying you? https://www.startssl.com/?app=1 https://www.startssl.com/?app=1
- JshWright 12y ago
  "Free" if you don't count your time spent dealing with their terrible interface...
- masklinn 12y ago
  StartSSL's free cert don't support wildcards and the revocation of a cert is $25 per, which can be a problem (it was during Heartbleed). I understand they also have a pretty bad interface and terrible customer service.
  - btreecat 12y ago
    What would you expect if you are not paying for the cert? For me revocation was not an issue. I just got a new cert under a different subdomain as I don't use subdomains on my personal site and the main domain is added as an alt name.
    - masklinn 12y ago
      I don't "expect" anything, I'm giving reasons why startssl might not be an option.
      - xorcist 12y ago
        It's quite reasonable pricing. It's less than most CAs does for a one year certificate, and revoking it is more work than issuing it in the first place. They are not without fault, but they've much good for open source project and the like, and don't deserve the bad rap thrown at them in every thread that mentions SSL.
joshmoz 12y ago
The CA itself is not ready yet. When it is, you can use the client in a simple mode to grab a certificate and drop it wherever you want, without automated configuration.
IgorPartola 12y ago
I don't want a tool that I have to run as root and that is going to touch anything in /etc/nginx/. I do want a tool using which I can do something like: $ letsencrypt 'foo.bar.example.com' which would spit out foo.bar.example.com.key, foo.bar.example.com.cert, and foo.bar.example.com.csr. I'd also like to have: $ letsencrypt --renew foo.bar.example.com Which would re-generate all these certs. The main problem for me, just like for you, is that domain validation certs are not free (or at least somehow included in the price of the domain registration). This type of tool solves that. If, on top of this tool, we also get something that lets a person new to ops autogenerate or even autodeploy an nginx vhost with TLS/SPDY support, awesome! But the ability to generate and renew certs from the command line, for free, is what I want and probably what you want too.
- amenghra 12y ago
  I totally agree. You would however need to somehow authenticate that you own foo.bar.example.com (code in email, host something under foo.bar.example.com, a TXT record, etc.).
  - notatoad 12y ago
    The tool shouldn't need root access to /etc/nfinx (or whatever your config Dir of choice is) to authenticate your ownership of a domain.
    - thristian 12y ago
      The tool doesn't care about your ownership of the domain, it cares about whether the host it's running on is trusted by the owner of the domain. The simplest way to verify that is for the CA to tell the tool "serve up this nonce value at this randomly-generated URL", and then to request that URL and see if it gets the right value. Depending on exactly what proof the CA wants, that will probably require some kind of tinkering with the webserver's config, or at least inspecting it to figure out how to fulfil the CA's request. Hopefully there'll be a fallback mechanism that tells the sysad what to configure, if only because not every webserver in the world is Apache or nginx.

flecno 12y ago

You should really see http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6397_-_en_-_saal_6_-_201412301400_-_let_s_encrypt_-_seth_schoen.html#video http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6397_-_en_-_...

Spooky23 12y ago
Thank you. This was a really informative, excellent talk.

IgorPartola 12y ago

Does anyone know whether this initiative will provide wildcard certs? Or will this be restricted to single domain certs?

grey-area 12y ago
Single domain only, at least initially.
Spooky23 12y ago
They will do multi-domain certs, but no wild cards. Also, you can reissue certs with added SANs

hrjet 12y ago

I was looking at the how it works[1] article but it isn't clear to me how the domain is validated. Couldn't an MITM between the LetsEcnrypt service and the example.com server request a certificate, then respond to the challenge, and then use that certificate later? Getting a certificate from StartSSL was similar. The only difference was that there was a human involved in the loop (a mail is sent and the user has to copy paste the contents of the email), but in essence, both the services seem vulnerable. This seems to be an unsolvable bootstrapping problem, unless some sort of physical verification is done. What am I missing? [1]: https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/ https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/

vertex-four 12y ago
The protocol asserts that you have control over the domain, and over a machine that can be accessed at the domain's A record. If you can make your machine appear to be at google.com from the perspective of LetsEncrypt for the duration of the request process, you can get a cert from them. This is standard for all domain-validation-only certificate authorities, i.e. the cheapest cert you can get from any given company.