24 ms·

I should be happy about this -- who wouldn't want the entire web to be encrypted -- but SSL is so broken for normal people. SSL is expensive (wildcard certifica

I should be happy about this -- who wouldn't want the entire web to be encrypted -- but SSL is so broken for normal people. SSL is expensive (wildcard certificates run $70 a year and up), confusing (how does one pick between the 200 different companies selling certificates?), and incredibly difficult to set up (what order should I cat the certificate pieces in again?). If SSL doesn't change, this move will cut the little folks out of the internet. What are Mozilla's values?

joelrunyon 11y ago
Seriously, SSLs basically 2x the hosting cost for low end hosting packages. Not great for people running small websites.
- adventured 11y ago
  SSL should be a universally available free resource. I expect that it will be in the near future. That said, it is still very cheap for small sites too: $9 - $11 / year for perfectly good certs. Less than $1 per month is a small burden. https://www.namecheap.com/security/ssl-certificates/domain-validation.aspx https://www.namecheap.com/security/ssl-certificates/domain-v...
  - nosefrog 11y ago
    I understand what you're saying, requiring SSL doesn't seem like too much of a burden superficially. But it's magnitudes harder and more frustration inducing than simply buying a domain. My website is protected by the cheapest certificate on that list, and it was a gigantic pain to set up. Also, only the root subdomain on my site is protected -- I have things on other subdomains which I can't encrypt because $10 dollars a year quickly adds up.
  - joelrunyon 11y ago
    but you have to get a dedicated IP as well, which means you can host less sites on a small server - something bad for smaller biz.
    - nirvdrum 11y ago
      All modern browsers support SNI [1]. I guess if you need to support IE8 on WinXP you'll have problems. And IIRC, wget on Ubuntu 12.04 doesn't support it (while curl does). But it's picked up a lot in recent years, which thankfully eases the dedicated IP requirement in many cases. [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
    - singlow 11y ago
      Absolutely no need for a dedicated IP unless you want to support very old versions of Windows or very old versions of Android. I haven't allocated a dedicated IP solely for SSL in years.
  - whyenot 11y ago
    "hosting package" =/= "cert[ificate]"
  - gabemart 11y ago
    >$9 - $11 / year for perfectly good certs So long as you don't need any subdomains, right?
  - xorcist 11y ago
    That's not the cost. You have to pay someone to re-sign your cert every (other) year. This is a largely manual process. It's also going to cost you, if you want any compensation at all when they forget. Which they will, no matter how well you prepare.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  That is today's prices, based past demand. As demand for SSL hosting goes up, gradually replacing plaintext hosting, the price will come down. I actually expect the price of plaintext HTTP hosting to go up a bit; partly due to reduced demand, but also due to increased risk/liability. With SSL being the "industry best practice", I expect at least a few bean counters will view the risk of private information leaks or hypothetical legal liability for enabling DDOS (similar to the "attractive nuisance" doctrine). There will be a turbulent transition period, of course. As someone currently living at the poverty line, I have argued against the CA system many times. A SSL cert (and anual renewal) may be an insignificant cost to some people, but it is a real barrier when tha cost represents days/weeks of food. Unfortunately, none of this removes the need for encryption or the risks of plaintext. This is why I'm very excited about Let’s Encrypt; It might solve the cost problem, and it might avoid the StartSSL "no second-source" problem because it is a protocol first. Internet use is only going up, so these transition costs are only going to go up. We can pay it now, or pay even more in the future.
  - merrua 11y ago
    Demand going up does not always mean that pricing goes down. Especially when supply is limited
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      Obviously. What's your point? That the price of SSL hosting will stay the same? Go up? I never claimed it would equalize perfectly, just that it would get cheaper in the future. Also, why do you think the supply of SSL hosting services is necessarily limited any more than traditional plaintext hosting would be?
bigdubs 11y ago
Why this project: https://letsencrypt.org/ https://letsencrypt.org/ is so important. From the site: Let’s Encrypt is a new Certificate Authority: It’s free, automated, and open. Arriving Mid-2015
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  That's just one project, and it doesn't even exist yet. The web is moving faster every day, apparently. I sure do hope that project will be all it's chalked up to be. For example, I need IP-only certs for a new project I'm working on (waiting for DNS to propagate to all clients is too unreliable and slow). If letsencrypt doesn't do that... well then I'd have to hope real hard for a competent CA out there who has an automated process available that allows IP-only certs. And whatever their price, if companies start following Mozilla's lead too soon, I'll have to pay up. The wording in the article is perhaps not so damning yet, but it's still making me uneasy that they put out this press release while there are currently ZERO viable solutions for this.
  - undefined0 11y ago
    LetsEncrypt works with IPv4. I assume it will work with IPv6. LetsEncrypt is a Mozilla project, it's safe to assume they will launch LetsEncrypt before deprecating non-secure websites.
    - schoen 11y ago
      Right now the subject identifier in a Let's Encrypt cert must be a DNS name, not an IP address. From the ACME protocol specification draft: "Note that while ACME is defined with enough flexibility to handle different types of identifiers in principle, the primary use case addressed by this document is the case where domain names are used as identifiers. For example, all of the identifier validation challenges described in Section {identifier-validation-challenges} below address validation of domain names. The use of ACME for other protocols will require further specification, in order to describe how these identifiers are encoded in the protocol, and what types of validation challenges the server might require."
baby 11y ago
This is a decision that should span out on several year, while there is Let's Encrypt arriving. I don't see the problem.
bashinator 11y ago
As an aside, I really don't like wildcard certs. If the private key is compromised, the consequences are so much worse than if you lose a regular cert.
- peteretep 11y ago
  Why is compromise of a cert that can sign ".moo.bar.foo.baz.com" so* much worse than compromise of one that can sign "www.moo.bar.foo.baz.com"?
  - carey 11y ago
    The compromise of technet.microsoft.com, while a very big deal, would be an order of magnitude worse if it was *.microsoft.com.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      How so? The update mechanisms use certificate pinning, and even if they didn't it sounds like an argument to use different certificates for code signing and for web servers. What other problems could there have been? Most people are only going to verify that it's microsoft.com.
- wampus 11y ago
  That's true if you're trying to save money by putting a ton of domains behind a single wildcard cert using a single private key. But there are security advantages to using multiple wildcard certs based on different private keys. One of them is that you can develop a nearly infinite number of sites without exposing the domain name via the certificate, so they can't be crawled or pentested until they are deployed publicly. The number of certs you buy should be based on the number of private keys you can securely deploy.
finnn 11y ago
$70 for a wildcard cert!? Where are you looking at? There's a shitload of AlphaSSL resellers that are much cheaper. I got 2 wildcard certs for $20/yr. Of course, there's really no need for a wildcard certificate, and StartCom gives out free, valid non-wildcard certs right now. On top of that, Lets Encrypt should simplify the process greatly.
- nosefrog 11y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=ssl+wildcard+certificate+cheap https://www.google.com/search?q=ssl+wildcard+certificate+che... I can't find anything lower than $60.
  - finnn 11y ago
    Offers like [1] are all over the web. I think i saw one for $7/yr once, but that disappeared. [1] http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/39165/vmbox-co-openvz-ssd-cached-dual-e5-2620v2-free-wildcard-ssl-20-year-la-deal-with-2-v4-ips http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/39165/vmbox-co-openvz-ssd-c...
  - ryan-c 11y ago
    http://www.garrisonhost.com/ssl-certificates/alphassl.html http://www.garrisonhost.com/ssl-certificates/alphassl.html $45 for a one year wildcard (not affiliated, but have bought a few certs from them without problems)
- MichaelApproved 11y ago
  People always tout StartCom as a free provider (which is really great) but they forget to mention that it's only free for personal use. StartCom offers the free (for personal use) Class 1 X.509 SSL certificate "StartSSL Free" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StartCom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StartCom
  - finnn 11y ago
    Right, and for anything that is commercial, a <$10/yr SSL certificate shouldn't be a huge deal. It's not perfect, it should all be free, but saying cost is a barrier is BS, in my opinion.
kijin 11y ago
This is a legitimate concern, but I think the so-called dire consequences are a bit overblown. Major browser vendors like Google and Mozilla don't change their policies in a vacuum while the rest of the world stays static. The move to "deprecate" HTTP is an explicit attempt to manipulate the rest of the world into making SSL easier and more affordable. It is unfair to evaluate this proposal in isolation without considering the market upheaval that it is very much intended to trigger. Currently, most web hosts charge a hefty markup on SSL certificates and charge even more to enable them on a website hosted with them. This practice may no longer be sustainable as more and more people begin to demand SSL. "Free SSL with every 1-year contract!" could well become a standard marketing slogan, just as "Free domain with every 1-year contract!" has been for the last 10+ years. Some domain registrars already offer free or low-cost (~$1.99) SSL certificates with the purchase of every domain. This may become more widespread as registrars scramble to remain competitive. Android 2.x and Windows XP are major excuses for not adopting SNI, but the upcoming release of Windows 10 will reduce the market share of XP even further, and old Android's lifespan is also running out thanks to the planned obsolescence of mobile devices. By 2017-18, nobody will care about these platforms anymore, and if anyone still does, we can tell them to get Firefox. Even without StartSSL or Let's Encrypt, existing CAs may be forced to cut their prices drastically as a horde of super-price-conscious consumers begin to flood their once prestigious trading floor. Some CAs have already been offering $20 wildcard certs through selected resellers. Expect more of these offers in the near future. This is a race to the bottom, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it! To top it off, CloudFlare is offering free SSL (SNI required) to everyone. Expect services like this to become more common as SSL comes to be seen as an essential component of every online service. Of course, there's no guarantee that these changes will occur. But I can guarantee that most of them will not occur unless there's massive, organized presssure on the lazy, greedy incumbents. Google and Mozilla are doing the world a great service by adding their weight to this much-needed pressure. Remember when the rest of the world basically ran an extortion racket to force the web hosting industry into upgrading to PHP 5? That was glorious. I want to see it happen again, this time for easy and affordable SSL. If the deadline arrives and the world still isn't ready for the transition, we'll think again and adjust our strategies accordingly. Nothing wrong with that. In the meantime, let's be optimistic and go bully some web hosts!
- 11y ago
vbezhenar 11y ago
I always wondered why does this certificate order matter? Web server can (and does) parse certificates. It should reorder them in correct order and log warnings if any issues were found.
jfoster 11y ago
I anticipate that phasing in SSL everywhere will bring clarity and affordability to SSL. Clarity, because there will be so much distilled information and tooling around setup. Affordability, because there will be so much volume that companies will start to compete on price in the same way that domain companies do.
nileshtrivedi 11y ago
Can someone explain why we can't give SSL certificates along with domain registration? We already trust the DNS, don't we?
- chetanahuja 11y ago
  No. Consider that DNS request/responses are simple, cleartext UDP packets. There's DNSSEC of course but nobody uses it (and also most security experts don't like it).
  - xorcist 11y ago
    That's a bit silly, considering it was developed over a ten year process, and a lot of security professionals had a hand in its design. There are problems with it, which some people are quick to point out, and it is important to be aware of them. The fact that your DNS data is enumerable is an important change, for example. You could compare it to IPsec, which is what most VPNs use, which is comparable in security and design. They both, together with SSL, suffer from a bad case of design-by-committee, including atrocities like X509. DNSSEC did get an important thing right. You are in full control of your own keys, and your DNS provider can not impersonate you. Having an external DNS hosting provider was not common back then, but it is now, and I'm glad they got that right.
    - indymike 11y ago
      If experts take 10 years to make a product that sucks, the product still sucks.
      - xorcist 11y ago
        Absolutely. SSH also sucks. TLS sucks badly. The only protocols that doesn't are those that haven't seen real-world usage yet. That's what drives innovation.
    - EmanueleAina 11y ago
      > The fact that your DNS data is enumerable is an important change, for example. Indeed, but afaik there are methods to mitigate it (NSEC3) and more refined ones in development (NSEC4, NSEC5).
shurcooL 11y ago
This article from 2014 [0] suggested Google Domains [1] may offer free SSL certificates. As far as I can see, that's not the case at this time. Does anyone have any information on this? How likely is it that this feature will come in the near future? [0] http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/24/with-google-domains-its-time-to-consider-raising-prices-and-make-ssl-certificates-free/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/24/with-google-domains-its-tim... [1] https://domains.google.com/about/ https://domains.google.com/about/
tljr 11y ago
"who wouldn't want the entire web to be encrypted" ...me. It's insane we're even considering this. There seems to be a swell of consensus among tech people that encryption is good. It's not. It's not even the better of two evils. Encryption is secrecy not privacy. Encryption doesn't even work. It's the war on drugs all over again.
hobarrera 11y ago
Well, if cost is your main priority, then startssl.com is the obvious way to go, since it provides free certificates. This "certificates are expensive" argument was only valid a decade ago, we have free certs now.
- detaro 11y ago
  Free as long as you never have to revoke them. Which means people primarily looking at costs are actually incentived to not revoke compromised certs.
  - pornel 11y ago
    Which is still waaaay better if they ran HTTP.
    - detaro 11y ago
      I don't agree. False pretense of security can be worse than visible insecurity.
      - pornel 11y ago
        > False pretense of security can be worse than visible insecurity. This applies to HTTP as well. That's why Firefox and Chrome will be visibly warning it's insecure.
        detaro 11y ago
        Which is fine. I wasn't arguing against the changes, but against citing startssl.com as a good solution (Even though I have to admit that their service overall extremely likely has done more good than damage, I really dislike that aspect of their offering)
  - hobarrera 11y ago
    Revoking has an actual cost itself for them too (and for all client, in the end) due to the revocation list growing. Revocation isn't part of the normal lifecyle of TLS certificates either: you'll only need this once you've had a security breach.
serge2k 11y ago
You shouldn't hold back technology because of pains like this, you should address the pains. Mozilla pushing forward aggressively forces people to address the pain points.

joelrunyon 11y ago

Seriously, SSLs basically 2x the hosting cost for low end hosting packages. Not great for people running small websites.

adventured 11y ago
SSL should be a universally available free resource. I expect that it will be in the near future. That said, it is still very cheap for small sites too: $9 - $11 / year for perfectly good certs. Less than $1 per month is a small burden. https://www.namecheap.com/security/ssl-certificates/domain-validation.aspx https://www.namecheap.com/security/ssl-certificates/domain-v...
- nosefrog 11y ago
  I understand what you're saying, requiring SSL doesn't seem like too much of a burden superficially. But it's magnitudes harder and more frustration inducing than simply buying a domain. My website is protected by the cheapest certificate on that list, and it was a gigantic pain to set up. Also, only the root subdomain on my site is protected -- I have things on other subdomains which I can't encrypt because $10 dollars a year quickly adds up.
- joelrunyon 11y ago
  but you have to get a dedicated IP as well, which means you can host less sites on a small server - something bad for smaller biz.
  - nirvdrum 11y ago
    All modern browsers support SNI [1]. I guess if you need to support IE8 on WinXP you'll have problems. And IIRC, wget on Ubuntu 12.04 doesn't support it (while curl does). But it's picked up a lot in recent years, which thankfully eases the dedicated IP requirement in many cases. [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
  - singlow 11y ago
    Absolutely no need for a dedicated IP unless you want to support very old versions of Windows or very old versions of Android. I haven't allocated a dedicated IP solely for SSL in years.
- whyenot 11y ago
  "hosting package" =/= "cert[ificate]"
- gabemart 11y ago
  >$9 - $11 / year for perfectly good certs So long as you don't need any subdomains, right?
- xorcist 11y ago
  That's not the cost. You have to pay someone to re-sign your cert every (other) year. This is a largely manual process. It's also going to cost you, if you want any compensation at all when they forget. Which they will, no matter how well you prepare.
pdkl95 11y ago
That is today's prices, based past demand. As demand for SSL hosting goes up, gradually replacing plaintext hosting, the price will come down. I actually expect the price of plaintext HTTP hosting to go up a bit; partly due to reduced demand, but also due to increased risk/liability. With SSL being the "industry best practice", I expect at least a few bean counters will view the risk of private information leaks or hypothetical legal liability for enabling DDOS (similar to the "attractive nuisance" doctrine). There will be a turbulent transition period, of course. As someone currently living at the poverty line, I have argued against the CA system many times. A SSL cert (and anual renewal) may be an insignificant cost to some people, but it is a real barrier when tha cost represents days/weeks of food. Unfortunately, none of this removes the need for encryption or the risks of plaintext. This is why I'm very excited about Let’s Encrypt; It might solve the cost problem, and it might avoid the StartSSL "no second-source" problem because it is a protocol first. Internet use is only going up, so these transition costs are only going to go up. We can pay it now, or pay even more in the future.
- merrua 11y ago
  Demand going up does not always mean that pricing goes down. Especially when supply is limited
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Obviously. What's your point? That the price of SSL hosting will stay the same? Go up? I never claimed it would equalize perfectly, just that it would get cheaper in the future. Also, why do you think the supply of SSL hosting services is necessarily limited any more than traditional plaintext hosting would be?

bigdubs 11y ago

Why this project: https://letsencrypt.org/ https://letsencrypt.org/ is so important. From the site: Let’s Encrypt is a new Certificate Authority: It’s free, automated, and open. Arriving Mid-2015

nothrabannosir 11y ago
That's just one project, and it doesn't even exist yet. The web is moving faster every day, apparently. I sure do hope that project will be all it's chalked up to be. For example, I need IP-only certs for a new project I'm working on (waiting for DNS to propagate to all clients is too unreliable and slow). If letsencrypt doesn't do that... well then I'd have to hope real hard for a competent CA out there who has an automated process available that allows IP-only certs. And whatever their price, if companies start following Mozilla's lead too soon, I'll have to pay up. The wording in the article is perhaps not so damning yet, but it's still making me uneasy that they put out this press release while there are currently ZERO viable solutions for this.
- undefined0 11y ago
  LetsEncrypt works with IPv4. I assume it will work with IPv6. LetsEncrypt is a Mozilla project, it's safe to assume they will launch LetsEncrypt before deprecating non-secure websites.
  - schoen 11y ago
    Right now the subject identifier in a Let's Encrypt cert must be a DNS name, not an IP address. From the ACME protocol specification draft: "Note that while ACME is defined with enough flexibility to handle different types of identifiers in principle, the primary use case addressed by this document is the case where domain names are used as identifiers. For example, all of the identifier validation challenges described in Section {identifier-validation-challenges} below address validation of domain names. The use of ACME for other protocols will require further specification, in order to describe how these identifiers are encoded in the protocol, and what types of validation challenges the server might require."

baby 11y ago

This is a decision that should span out on several year, while there is Let's Encrypt arriving. I don't see the problem.

bashinator 11y ago

As an aside, I really don't like wildcard certs. If the private key is compromised, the consequences are so much worse than if you lose a regular cert.

peteretep 11y ago
Why is compromise of a cert that can sign ".moo.bar.foo.baz.com" so* much worse than compromise of one that can sign "www.moo.bar.foo.baz.com"?
- carey 11y ago
  The compromise of technet.microsoft.com, while a very big deal, would be an order of magnitude worse if it was *.microsoft.com.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    How so? The update mechanisms use certificate pinning, and even if they didn't it sounds like an argument to use different certificates for code signing and for web servers. What other problems could there have been? Most people are only going to verify that it's microsoft.com.
wampus 11y ago
That's true if you're trying to save money by putting a ton of domains behind a single wildcard cert using a single private key. But there are security advantages to using multiple wildcard certs based on different private keys. One of them is that you can develop a nearly infinite number of sites without exposing the domain name via the certificate, so they can't be crawled or pentested until they are deployed publicly. The number of certs you buy should be based on the number of private keys you can securely deploy.

finnn 11y ago

$70 for a wildcard cert!? Where are you looking at? There's a shitload of AlphaSSL resellers that are much cheaper. I got 2 wildcard certs for $20/yr. Of course, there's really no need for a wildcard certificate, and StartCom gives out free, valid non-wildcard certs right now. On top of that, Lets Encrypt should simplify the process greatly.

nosefrog 11y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=ssl+wildcard+certificate+cheap https://www.google.com/search?q=ssl+wildcard+certificate+che... I can't find anything lower than $60.
- finnn 11y ago
  Offers like [1] are all over the web. I think i saw one for $7/yr once, but that disappeared. [1] http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/39165/vmbox-co-openvz-ssd-cached-dual-e5-2620v2-free-wildcard-ssl-20-year-la-deal-with-2-v4-ips http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/39165/vmbox-co-openvz-ssd-c...
- ryan-c 11y ago
  http://www.garrisonhost.com/ssl-certificates/alphassl.html http://www.garrisonhost.com/ssl-certificates/alphassl.html $45 for a one year wildcard (not affiliated, but have bought a few certs from them without problems)
MichaelApproved 11y ago
People always tout StartCom as a free provider (which is really great) but they forget to mention that it's only free for personal use. StartCom offers the free (for personal use) Class 1 X.509 SSL certificate "StartSSL Free" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StartCom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StartCom
- finnn 11y ago
  Right, and for anything that is commercial, a <$10/yr SSL certificate shouldn't be a huge deal. It's not perfect, it should all be free, but saying cost is a barrier is BS, in my opinion.

kijin 11y ago

This is a legitimate concern, but I think the so-called dire consequences are a bit overblown. Major browser vendors like Google and Mozilla don't change their policies in a vacuum while the rest of the world stays static. The move to "deprecate" HTTP is an explicit attempt to manipulate the rest of the world into making SSL easier and more affordable. It is unfair to evaluate this proposal in isolation without considering the market upheaval that it is very much intended to trigger. Currently, most web hosts charge a hefty markup on SSL certificates and charge even more to enable them on a website hosted with them. This practice may no longer be sustainable as more and more people begin to demand SSL. "Free SSL with every 1-year contract!" could well become a standard marketing slogan, just as "Free domain with every 1-year contract!" has been for the last 10+ years. Some domain registrars already offer free or low-cost (~$1.99) SSL certificates with the purchase of every domain. This may become more widespread as registrars scramble to remain competitive. Android 2.x and Windows XP are major excuses for not adopting SNI, but the upcoming release of Windows 10 will reduce the market share of XP even further, and old Android's lifespan is also running out thanks to the planned obsolescence of mobile devices. By 2017-18, nobody will care about these platforms anymore, and if anyone still does, we can tell them to get Firefox. Even without StartSSL or Let's Encrypt, existing CAs may be forced to cut their prices drastically as a horde of super-price-conscious consumers begin to flood their once prestigious trading floor. Some CAs have already been offering $20 wildcard certs through selected resellers. Expect more of these offers in the near future. This is a race to the bottom, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it! To top it off, CloudFlare is offering free SSL (SNI required) to everyone. Expect services like this to become more common as SSL comes to be seen as an essential component of every online service. Of course, there's no guarantee that these changes will occur. But I can guarantee that most of them will not occur unless there's massive, organized presssure on the lazy, greedy incumbents. Google and Mozilla are doing the world a great service by adding their weight to this much-needed pressure. Remember when the rest of the world basically ran an extortion racket to force the web hosting industry into upgrading to PHP 5? That was glorious. I want to see it happen again, this time for easy and affordable SSL. If the deadline arrives and the world still isn't ready for the transition, we'll think again and adjust our strategies accordingly. Nothing wrong with that. In the meantime, let's be optimistic and go bully some web hosts!

11y ago

vbezhenar 11y ago

I always wondered why does this certificate order matter? Web server can (and does) parse certificates. It should reorder them in correct order and log warnings if any issues were found.

jfoster 11y ago

I anticipate that phasing in SSL everywhere will bring clarity and affordability to SSL. Clarity, because there will be so much distilled information and tooling around setup. Affordability, because there will be so much volume that companies will start to compete on price in the same way that domain companies do.

nileshtrivedi 11y ago

Can someone explain why we can't give SSL certificates along with domain registration? We already trust the DNS, don't we?

chetanahuja 11y ago
No. Consider that DNS request/responses are simple, cleartext UDP packets. There's DNSSEC of course but nobody uses it (and also most security experts don't like it).
- xorcist 11y ago
  That's a bit silly, considering it was developed over a ten year process, and a lot of security professionals had a hand in its design. There are problems with it, which some people are quick to point out, and it is important to be aware of them. The fact that your DNS data is enumerable is an important change, for example. You could compare it to IPsec, which is what most VPNs use, which is comparable in security and design. They both, together with SSL, suffer from a bad case of design-by-committee, including atrocities like X509. DNSSEC did get an important thing right. You are in full control of your own keys, and your DNS provider can not impersonate you. Having an external DNS hosting provider was not common back then, but it is now, and I'm glad they got that right.
  - indymike 11y ago
    If experts take 10 years to make a product that sucks, the product still sucks.
    - xorcist 11y ago
      Absolutely. SSH also sucks. TLS sucks badly. The only protocols that doesn't are those that haven't seen real-world usage yet. That's what drives innovation.
  - EmanueleAina 11y ago
    > The fact that your DNS data is enumerable is an important change, for example. Indeed, but afaik there are methods to mitigate it (NSEC3) and more refined ones in development (NSEC4, NSEC5).

shurcooL 11y ago

This article from 2014 [0] suggested Google Domains [1] may offer free SSL certificates. As far as I can see, that's not the case at this time. Does anyone have any information on this? How likely is it that this feature will come in the near future? [0] http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/24/with-google-domains-its-time-to-consider-raising-prices-and-make-ssl-certificates-free/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/24/with-google-domains-its-tim... [1] https://domains.google.com/about/ https://domains.google.com/about/

tljr 11y ago

"who wouldn't want the entire web to be encrypted" ...me. It's insane we're even considering this. There seems to be a swell of consensus among tech people that encryption is good. It's not. It's not even the better of two evils. Encryption is secrecy not privacy. Encryption doesn't even work. It's the war on drugs all over again.

hobarrera 11y ago

Well, if cost is your main priority, then startssl.com is the obvious way to go, since it provides free certificates. This "certificates are expensive" argument was only valid a decade ago, we have free certs now.

detaro 11y ago
Free as long as you never have to revoke them. Which means people primarily looking at costs are actually incentived to not revoke compromised certs.
- pornel 11y ago
  Which is still waaaay better if they ran HTTP.
  - detaro 11y ago
    I don't agree. False pretense of security can be worse than visible insecurity.
    - pornel 11y ago
      > False pretense of security can be worse than visible insecurity. This applies to HTTP as well. That's why Firefox and Chrome will be visibly warning it's insecure.
      - detaro 11y ago
        Which is fine. I wasn't arguing against the changes, but against citing startssl.com as a good solution (Even though I have to admit that their service overall extremely likely has done more good than damage, I really dislike that aspect of their offering)
- hobarrera 11y ago
  Revoking has an actual cost itself for them too (and for all client, in the end) due to the revocation list growing. Revocation isn't part of the normal lifecyle of TLS certificates either: you'll only need this once you've had a security breach.

serge2k 11y ago

You shouldn't hold back technology because of pains like this, you should address the pains. Mozilla pushing forward aggressively forces people to address the pain points.