Selfhosted

53285 readers

1038 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

344

Decreasing Certificate Lifetimes to 45 Days (letsencrypt.org)

submitted 1 day ago by artiman@piefed.social to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Let’s Encrypt will be reducing the validity period of the certificates we issue. We currently issue certificates valid for 90 days, which will be cut in half to 45 days by 2028.
This change is being made along with the rest of the industry, as required by the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements, which set the technical requirements that we must follow. All publicly-trusted Certificate Authorities like Let’s Encrypt will be making similar changes. Reducing how long certificates are valid for helps improve the security of the internet, by limiting the scope of compromise, and making certificate revocation technologies more efficient.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] False@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

Isn't this just CRL in reverse? And CRL sucks or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Part of the point of cryptographically signing a cert is so you don't have to do this if you trust the issuer.

Cryptography already makes it infeasible for a malicious actor to create a fake cert. The much more common attack vector is having a legitimate cert's private key compromised.

[–] cron@feddit.org 2 points 22 hours ago

No, these are completely separate issues.

CRL: protect against certificates that have their private key compromised
CT: protect against incompetent or malicious Certificate Authorities.

This is just one example why we have certificate transparency. Revocation wouldn't be useful if it isn't even known which certificates need revocation.

The National Informatics Centre (NIC) of India, a subordinate CA of the Indian Controller of Certifying Authorities (India CCA), issues rogue certificates for Google and Yahoo domains. NIC claims that their issuance process was compromised and that only four certificates were misissued. However, Google is aware of misissued certificates not reported by NIC, so it can only be assumed that the scope of the breach is unknown.

Source

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago

Or the more likely a rouge certificate authority giving out certs it shouldn't.