Happy birthday to Let’s Encrypt !

Huge thanks to everyone involved in making HTTPS available to everyone for free !

  • fiendishplan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I worked for a company we had 300 websites, the boss wanted to buy certs. I told him about Lets Encrypt. He loved the idea it saved us a bunch of money. I suggest we donate $100 to them. Hes says “NO F-ing way!”.

  • laxe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Huge impact on a tiny budget - that’s extremely impressive. The world could be so much better without rent seeking parasites.

  • 0x01@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Man I love let’s encrypt, remember how terrible ssl was before the project landed?

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Crazy times. Nowadays it’s weird when a website doesn’t have https. Back then it was pretty much big companies only. And the price of a wildcard certificate…

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh man, I forgot about startssl until just now. I definitely had a few of those certs. If you wanted something fancy like a wildcard cert back then, you were paying $$$

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Luckily, wildcard certs are insecure and should be avoided.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Wildcard certs are perfectly fine. Your own instance lemm.ee is using one right now.

            Obviously there could be issues if subdomains are shared with other sites, but if the whole domain is owned by 1 person, what does it matter?

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              If one system is somehow compromised, the attacker could effectively impersonate all the systems on your entire domain if they had the wildcard cert. Maybe it’s not a huge deal for individuals but for companies or other organisations it could be extremely dangerous.

              If someone wanted a wildcard cert at work I would be very cautious before I even considered issuing one. Unfortunately there are a few wildcard certs on our domain, but those are from before my time.

              • pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.frOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Having a certificate for any subdomain has implications for other sibling domains, even without a wildcard certificate.

                By default, web browsers are a lot less strict about Same Origin Policy for sibling domains, which enables a lot of web-based attacks (like CSRF and cookie stealing) if your able to hijack any subdomain

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      And if you remember, that this whole shebang was only started, because Snowden revealed that the NSA spied on all of us, it’s getting much much darker.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        People behave as if having a green lock icon were enough to consider you’re safe.

        People behave as if there were not multiple cases of abuse of PKI.

        People behave as if all those whistleblowing cases exposing widespread illegal activities by the state were not treated as normal, except those exposing them being chased and vilified.

        What I’m trying to say is that we’re past the stage where techno-optimism about the Internet made sense. They just say in the news that abusing you is good, and everybody just takes it.

    • pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.frOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I did not have the money to pay the insane amounts these greedy for-profit certificate authorities asked, so I only remember the pain of trying to setup my self-signed root certificate on my several devices/browsers, and then being unable to recover my private key because I went over the top with securing it.

    • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is the free, easy way to get an SSL cert (plus automated renewals). Without it, maybe HTTPS wouldn’t have been so omnipresent.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And it shouldn’t have been, SSL PKI is an intentionally rigged architecture. It’s intended for nation-states to be able to abuse it.

        I’d like much more some kind of overlay encryption over HTTP based on web of trust and what not. Like those distributed imageboards people were trying to make with steganography in emotion.

        It’s a trap. Everybody is already in it and it has already been activated, so - the discussion would be of historical interest only.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      HTTPS certs used to be very expensive and technically complicated, making it out of reach for most smaller orgs. Let’s Encrypt brought easy mass adoption and changed encryption availability on the web for everyone.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They also made it a open protocol (the ACME protocol), so now there’s a bunch of certificate providers that implement the same protocol and thus can work with the same client apps (Certbot, acme.sh, etc). I know Sectigo and GoDaddy support ACME at least. So even if you don’t use Let’s Encrypt, you can still benefit from their work.

  • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Sleeping too well lately? Consider this:

    If LetsEncrypt were to suffer a few weeks outage, how much of the internet would break?

      • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It won’t be that simple.

        For starters, you’re assuming t-zero response. It’ll likely be a week before people worry enough that LE isn’t returning before they act. Then they have to find someone else for, possibly, the hundreds or thousands of certs they are responsible for. Set up processes with them. Hope that this new provide is able to cope with the massive, MASSIVE surge in demand without falling over themselves.

        And that’s assuming your company knows all its certs. That they haven’t changed staff and lost knowledge, or outsourced IT (in which case they provider is likely staggering under the weight of all their clients demanding instant attention) and all that goes with that. Automation is actually bad in this situation because people tend to forget how stuff was done until it breaks. It’s very likely that many certs will simply expire because they were forgotten about and the first thing some companies knows is when customers start complaining.

        LetsEncrypt is genuinely brilliant, but we’ve all added a massive single point of failure into our systems by adopting it.

        (Yeah, I’ve written a few disaster plans in my time. Why do you ask?)

        • Zangoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Piggybacking off this comment because I completely agree with it.

          Did we not learn anything from CrowdStrike? If a comparatively simple fix was able to wipe out half the world, how would something that requires an active choice (where to get certs from) not completely cripple all of our infrastructure?

  • somenonewho@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Damn! That’s definitely a “I’m old” moment for me. I still remember when I first heard about the concept and I remember setting it up the first time on a self hosted project (which seemed harder back then).

    Awesome project!

  • max55@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s very great news! Thank you for all the good work!

  • __matthew__@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lol I instinctively freaked out when I saw the post preview assuming it was going to be a post about a major data breach or exploit of some sort relating to Let’s Encrypt.

    I probably need more positivity in my life 😂

  • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Let’s Encrypt is amazing, but are there any equally trustworthy alternatives people could switch to if something bad happens to it?

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      If it begins to enshitify, someone will quickly take up the helm. It’s become so core now that someone like Cloudflare would just be like “We do this now.”

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think Cloudflare enshittifying is a bigger risk that Let’s Encrypt.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Cloudflare sort of provides this now by being a MITM to secure your site between your server and the end user. But this requires you and your end user to trust Cloudflare.

        And fwiw the ACME protocol is open so anyone can implement it. I believe even the ACME software that EFF sends out allows you to choose your server with some configuration.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      ZeroSSL, plus a few paid companies support ACME (I know Sectigo and GoDaddy do). Sure, the latter are paid services, but in theory you can switch to them and use the exact same setup you’re currently using with Let’s Encrypt.

          • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Yes, seems you are right. Not sure where I got the impression.

            Unrelated, when I researched this I saw that acme.sh, zerossl, and a bunch of other acme clients are owned by the same entity, “Stack Holdings”/“apilayer.com”. According to this, zerossl also has some limitations over letsencrypt in account requirements and limits on free certificates.

            By using ZeroSSL’s ACME feature, you will be able to generate an unlimited amount of 90-day SSL certificates at no charge, also supporting multi-domain certificates and wildcards. Each certificate you create will be stored in your ZeroSSL account.

            It is suspicious that they impose so many restrictions then waive most on the acme api, where they presumably could not compete otherwise. On their gui they allow only 3 certificates and don’t allow multi-domain at all. Then even in the acme client they somehow push an account into the process.

            […] for using our ACME service you have to create and use EAB (External Account Binding) credentials within your ZeroSSL dashboard.

            EAB credentials are limited to a maximum per user/per day. [This might be for creating them, not uses per credential, unsure how to interpret this.]

            This all does make me slightly worry this block around apilayer.com will fall before letsencrypt does.

            Other than letsencrypt and zerossl, this page also lists no other full equivalents for what letsencrypt does.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They came up with the ACME protocol, so presumably somebody could. The real barrier to entry is the cost of getting into that certificate chain of trust. I have no idea why it’s so difficult and expensive.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well, it’s difficult, as it should be, because if you control a certificate in the active chain of trust of browsers, you can hack pretty much anything you want.

        • treadful@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the CA only signing your public key to prove identity/authority? I don’t think the CA can magically MITM every cert they sign.

          The impact is serious enough to warrant a $1m entry fee, IMO. At best, someone could impersonate a site. They’d also have to get other things in line (e.g. DNS hijacking) to be at all successful anyway. And it’s not like most people are authenticating certs themselves. They just trust browsers to trust CAs that vouch for you and prevents those scary browser warnings.

          It doesn’t improve encryption compared to a self-signed cert though.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            If you are the CA, you can sign a new certificate yourself for google.com and the browser will accept it. It’s effectively allows MITM for any certificate. Worse, it’s not even limited to certificates under that CA. The browser has no way of knowing there’s 2 “valid” certs at once, and in fact that is allowed regardless (multiple servers with different instances of the SSL cert is a possibility).

            Certificate pinning might save things, since that will force the same certificate as was previously used, but I’m not sure this is a common default.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Just two months ago, a security team member dinged one of our services for using Lets Encrypt, as “it’s not as secure as a traditional CA”.

    • bfg9k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d love for them to explain how, if anything the short cert validity and constant re-checking of the domain seems more secure than traditional CAs

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s sad that these arguments are still being shared. It was the same arguments years ago from people that would just assume that a free cert was inherently unsafe.

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Lots of people shitting on stories of people who buy certs.

    You do still have to buy a cert if you want one for a .onion. Let’s encrypt still doesn’t support it :(