• @486@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1086 months ago

    I understand their reasoning behind this, but I am not sure, this is such a good idea. Imagine Letsencrypt having technical issues or getting DDoS’d. If the certificates are valid for 90 days and are typically renewed well in advance, no real problem arises, but with only 6 days in total, you really can’t renew them all that much in advance, so this risk of lots of sites having expired certificates in such a situation appears quite large to me.

    • Justin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      196 months ago

      That’s true, but it would also have to be a serious attack for LE to be down for 3 entire days. There are multiple providers for automated certs, so you could potentially just switch if needed.

        • Justin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Most companies weren’t suited for automatic certs either, but now they are

      • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The attack would only need to last for a day or two, and then everyone requesting updated certs when it stops could push enough people outside the 6-day window to cause problems. 6 days is probably long enough to not be a huge issue, but it’s getting close to problematic. Maybe change to 15 days, which should avoid the whole issue (people could update once/week and still have a spare week and a day to catch issues).

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I volunteer to help with IT at a makerspace, and I hesitate to go for 6 day expiration times. As volunteers, we can’t always fix problems in a timely way like paid IT staff could. We try to automate the hell out of everything, but certs have gone a day or two without getting updated before.

    • @Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 months ago

      No one forces you to use let’s encrypt certificates. Can just quickly switch to another one temporarily.

      • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        176 months ago

        Yeah, if you notice within that 6-day window before it expires. If you don’t catch it, your service could be down while you fix it, and that’s bad.

          • Ænima
            link
            fedilink
            English
            36 months ago

            Yeah you might be on vacation when it happens

            What the fuck is a vacation?

              • Ænima
                link
                fedilink
                English
                26 months ago

                But what if my army gets sad without me? What if I bring just some army? Ya know, in a travel carrier.

  • @hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    876 months ago

    When I look at the default list of trusted CAs in my browser, I get the feeling that certificate lifetimes isn’t the biggest issue with server certificates.

    • @errer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      226 months ago

      The sites I have most frequently have had to add expired certificates to use are US government websites. Particularly those affiliated with the military branches. It’s sad.

          • semi [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            136 months ago

            I’m a developer and would appreciate you going into more specifics about which certificates you suggest pinning.

            • @jagged_circle@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              9
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I’m saying that if you’re a developer of software that communicates between two nodes across the internet, you shouldn’t rely on X.509 because the common root stores have historically been filled with compromised CAs, which would let someone with that CA decrypt and view the messages you send with TLS.

              You should mint your own certs and pin their fingerprints so that your application will only send messages if the fingerprint of the cert on the other end matches your trusted cert.

              • semi [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                76 months ago

                OK, so cases where you control both ends of the communication. Thanks for the clarification.

                • @jagged_circle@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  26 months ago

                  Yeah, fuck the users. We can just slap “100% secure” on the box and who cares if some woman is raped and murdered because we decided not to follow best security practices, right? /s

                • TarantulaFudge
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 months ago

                  Technically all certificates are pinned, especially with public CAs, most OS package the latest CA certs which will all go out of style within 10 years or so. You can see this by loading up any old distro or defunct version of windows.

      • @oldfart@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        Yeah, now imagine pinning certs that change weekly.

        My first thought is that old school secure software (like claws-mail) treats a cert change as a minor security incident, asking you to confirm every time. Completely different school of thought.

  • @JaddedFauceet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    266 months ago

    What is the use case or benefit for the server admin?

    as a server admin I wouldn’t want to keep renewing my cert.

    can anyone help to explain?

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      396 months ago

      Lets Encrypt certs tend to be renewed by a cronjob, anyway. The advantage is that if someone gets your cert without your knowledge, they have, at most, six days to make use of it.

      • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        246 months ago

        If they get it without your knowledge, what are the odds they can get the new one too?

        If they got it with your knowledge, can’t you just revoke the old one?

        • @lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          106 months ago

          If they got it with your knowledge, can’t you just revoke the old one?

          Yeah, but unfortunately cert revocation isn’t that great in practice. Lots of devices and services don’t even check the revocation lists on every connection.

          • ivanafterall ☑️
            link
            fedilink
            English
            76 months ago

            I’ve been using the Swiss Cheese Model for my sandwiches and they’ve been a disaster.

          • @ADTJ@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            It would be six days at max, assuming they managed to steal the certificate immediately after it was issued, otherwise it’s gonna be even less.

            Having the certificate doesn’t automatically mean you can change the site, if you have control of the site hosting you likely wouldn’t need to steal the cert anyway.

            Stealing the certificate would allow you to run a man in the middle type attack but that’s inevitably going to be very limited in scope. The shorter time limit on the cert reduces that scope even further, which is great.

            Since most Let’s Encrypt certs will have an automated renewal process this doesn’t even really change the overhead of setup so I think this move makes a lot of sense.

            There are other things certificates can be used for as well of course but I’m just going off your example.

  • @Laser@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    166 months ago

    It’s kind of in line with their plan to get rid of OCSP: short certificate lifetimes keep CRLs short, so I get where they’re coming from (I think).

    90 days of validity, which was once a short lifetime. Currently, Google is planning to enforce this as the maximum validity duration in their browser, and I’m sure Mozilla will follow, but it wouldn’t matter if they didn’t because no provider can afford to not support chromium based browsers.

    I was expecting that they reduce the maximum situation to e.g. 30 days, but I guess they want to make the stricter rules optional first to make sure there are no issues.

  • Ⓜ3️⃣3️⃣ 🌌
    link
    fedilink
    English
    146 months ago

    Digicert, Sectigo, Globalsign: hold my beer, 1 day certificate, even better: on the fly certificate per client 😂

      • Ⓜ3️⃣3️⃣ 🌌
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        Free has zero value in the enterprise world if managing certificates is a nightmare. Certificate prices is insignificant when your average website is a 90.000€ project.

  • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    146 months ago

    Interesting. I use LetsEncrypt largely for internal services, of which I expose a handful externally, and I’ve been thinking of only opening the external port mapping for cert renewals. With this at 90 days, I was planning on doing this once/month or so, but maybe I’ll just go script it and try doing it every 2-3 days (and only leave the external ports open for the duration of the challenge/response).

    I’m guessing my use-case is pretty abnormal, but it would be super cool if they had support for this use-case. I basically just want my router to handle static routes and have everything be E2EE even on my LAN. Shortening to 6 days is cool from a security standpoint, but a bit annoying for this use-case.

      • @groet@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        276 months ago

        Perfect, let’s also bind the certificate to a user session that is derived from a user fingerprint. That way the CA can track users across all sites

  • jonw
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Don’t certs just create an ephemeral key pair that disappears after the session anyhow? What does cert validity period have to do with “This is a big upgrade for the security of the TLS ecosystem because it minimizes exposure time during a key compromise event.”

    I mean, it’s LE so I’m sure they know what their talking about. But…?

    • @jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      96 months ago

      compromising a keypair is a huge win. lets you impersonate the domain. shorter validation periods = smaller windows of compromised situations.

      basically the smaller you make the window the less manual intervention and the less complicated infrastructure gets. currently TLS systems need a way to invalidate certificates. get them down to a day and suddenly that need just disappears. vastly simplifying the code and the system. 6 days is a huge improvement over 90 days.

      • jonw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        Ok, I slid right by the “compromised” word. Makes sense now.

        • @jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          you mean you slid right on by an understanding of how security infrastructure works. since one always assumes credentials will be compromised.

          • jonw
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            I mean I just missed that part.

    • @treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 months ago

      I’m far from an expert on PKI, but isn’t the keypair used for the cert used for key exchange? Then in theory, if that key was compromised, it could allow an adversary to be able to capture and decrypt full sessions.

      • @snowfalldreamland@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        56 months ago

        Im also not an expert but i believe since there Is still an ephemeral DH key exchange happening an attacker needs to actively MITM while having the certificate private key to decrypt the session. Passive capturing wont work

      • jonw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        No. Perfect Forward Secrecy (ephemeral keys) prevents this type of replay.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      26 months ago

      The key pair you’re thinking of is just a singular key for a block cipher. That key needs to be generated/transmitted in a secure manner. Meaning that its security is dependent on the cert. The expiration time of that cert is what they’re aiming at.