News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by sandGorgon on Thursday March 23, 2017 @01:47PM (#13942138)
>All Symantec issued certificates. GeoTrust and Thawte are CAs operated by Symantec, simply afforded different branding.

>While this list may need to be updated for some recently created roots, https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/net/... may accurately capture the state of impact

Damn. There goes my certificate (Rapidssl). Anybody know what are the remaining, trustworthy certificate issuers ?

No we cannot use LetsEncrypt for convenience reasons (we bake our certificate pub key in many places)

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by nikcub on Thursday March 23, 2017 @10:36PM (#13946162)
DigiCert

https://www.digicert.com/

Great company and good people involved in CA/B Forum who advocate on behalf of user security. They'll never pull some of the nonsense the other CA's attempt and I can't recommend them enough.

edit: to add, DigiCert were one of the only CA's to support Google's motion to reduce max cert validity period to 12 months, which didn't pass[0]

DigiCert were also the CA that helped us get Tor onion addresses validated which eventually became a standard

[0] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2017-January/009374.ht...

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by sandGorgon on Friday March 24, 2017 @12:02AM (#13946505)
Very cool, thanks for that. Their prices are super super super expensive though.

Almost 10x as expensive as Comodo for wildcard .

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by Ajedi32 on Thursday March 23, 2017 @01:50PM (#13942190)
> No we cannot use LetsEncrypt for convenience reasons (we bake our certificate pub key in many places)

Why does that matter? Pretty sure you don't have to change your public key to get or renew a Let's Encrypt cert.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by sandGorgon on Thursday March 23, 2017 @01:57PM (#13942260)
we spawn our servers and scale them up and down. We terminate ssl internally to our applications which are on Docker.

Letsencrypt is painful on docker. I dont mind paying 40$ per year for a wildcard ssl certificate.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by gcr on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:18PM (#13942510)
Why not keep `/etc/ssl` inside a volume mounted by each docker container and run letsencrypt outside of docker? Each docker container doesn't need its own instance of letsencrypt; it just needs access to your key.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by fomojola on Thursday March 23, 2017 @03:27PM (#13943285)
If you use the DNS auth, its actually not bad: you can securely issue the certs on a different machine and just copy the PEM files to the right place. I used this with Route 53's API and it works quite well and is (in my opinion) superior to having to place files.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by geofft on Thursday March 23, 2017 @05:36PM (#13944587)
You can get a Let's Encrypt certificate manually; you don't have to automate it. There are a few options, including https://gethttpsforfree.com/ by 'diafygi, which involves running some openssl commands and pasting public keys and signatures into the web form (which in turn send API requests to Let's Encrypt). Or you can find or build a client yourself.

The only hard part is you'll have to find a way to prove ownership other than email ownership. But if these are public-facing web servers, implementing a response for the HTTP challenge shouldn't be hard, and as the website points out, you can configure all your servers to send an HTTP redirect for the challenge to some other single URL, which you can configure manually. https://letsencrypt.org/docs/integration-guide/#picking-a-ch...

This process is significantly less painful, especially on renewals, than the traditional certificate renewal process. If you're already planning on spending an hour of someone's time a year to request a renewal, pay for it, click a link in an email, etc., plan on spending 10 minute of someone's time every two months, instead. (And an hour is optimistic based on my experience.)

Your public and private keys don't change, since these are renewals. You're just updating the certificates themselves. And certificates are public data (they're sent in their entirety when you make an HTTPS connection), so you can just put them in a git repo or an S3 bucket or whatever else is convenient for your deploy process.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by sandGorgon on Friday March 24, 2017 @12:00AM (#13946496)
You think it is the same to setup renewal for Letsencrypt and a vanilla cert, but it's not.

We buy 3 year wildcard certs - Rapidssl was about 80$. From about a month before renewal, they start sending you emails and make sure you don't forget.

Letsencrypt is a good idea for larger setups with dedicated devops. For a start-up, it's the exact same argument as Gitlab vs Github.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by user5994461 on Thursday March 23, 2017 @04:28PM (#13943935)
Use self signed certificate with your own CA.

There is no reason for these apps to have a public cert. An app shouldn't be publicly exposed.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by newman314 on Thursday March 23, 2017 @05:31PM (#13944538)
xenolf/lego in DNS mode FTW.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by justusw on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:30PM (#13945321)
Can confirm, Lego on k8s is really pain-free to use. Following the official documentation meant that I was able to have HTTPS running on our Google Cloud load balancer within 30 minutes.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by QUFB on Thursday March 23, 2017 @01:55PM (#13942242)
You can use an existing CSR with Let's Encrypt, so you wouldn't have to change your public key.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by mastax on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:16PM (#13942487)
I have heard lots of good things about Digicert, FWIW. No personal experience as my use case can be covered by LetsEncrypt.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by protomyth on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:30PM (#13942655)
Digicert works for us. Wouldn't mind switching to LetsEncrypt but vendors are the issue (oh, the joy of approved lists).
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by scrollaway on Thursday March 23, 2017 @04:23PM (#13943894)
Seconding Digicert. They're expensive, but the most solid and trustworthy option when it comes to "old school" cert providers. EV, Wildcard, code signing.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by compuguy on Thursday March 23, 2017 @03:59PM (#13943655)
What about Globalsign?
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by tobltobs on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:11PM (#13942410)
> Anybody know what are the remaining, trustworthy certificate issuers ?

You could take a look at Gandi.net. I don't have any experience with their Certificates, but I trust them with the all their other offerings.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by yuhong on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:22PM (#13942561)
The fun thing is that RapidSSL was the biggest problem when they were trying to kill 1024-bit roots for example.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by castillar76 on Monday March 27, 2017 @02:27PM (#13970357)
As others have said, Digicert is good, as is IdenTrust (though neither are cheap). You might also look at HydrantID, which is rooted to QuoVadis, who've been around a good long time.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by soperj on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:53PM (#13942916)
Also wondering this, as I'm about to buy a new cert.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by micah94 on Thursday March 23, 2017 @04:07PM (#13943743)
I switched to DIGICERT when Verisign started buying everyone up (then Symantec bought them). I haven't looked back...except for dev boxes where I can get away with Let's Encrypt.

For business I highly recommend DIGICERT. They are an independent company.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by soperj on Thursday March 23, 2017 @06:26PM (#13944904)
Thanks.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by looklittlejohn on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:02PM (#13942318)
Well, Comodo's had an okay track-record, if I recall correctly. But I also don't recall them being cheap.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by tobltobs on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:22PM (#13942549)
> Comodo's had an okay track-record,

I am not sure what standards apply to companies in this segment, but Comodo has an awful track record imho. Just looking at the Wikipedia article gives me a shill. And those are only the cases where Comodo couldn't deny any wrongdoing or failure.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by Tepix on Thursday March 23, 2017 @03:06PM (#13943070)
Haven't they been hacked more than once?
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by agwa on Thursday March 23, 2017 @05:26PM (#13944475)
One of Comodo's registration authorities was breached, but not Comodo themselves. Comodo were able to detect the breach and cut off the compromised RA because they were monitoring what their RAs were doing. Symantec, on the other hand, didn't know that their RAs were mis-validating certificates until I noticed and told them.

(Registration authorities are third parties that perform certificate validation on behalf of the CA. I think Comodo bears some responsibility for delegating validation to an RA that was compromised, but Symantec's conduct has been so much worse in comparison.)

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by throwaway1992 on Friday March 24, 2017 @04:50AM (#13947541)
It wasn't one but three authorities which have been breached.

And maybe you should disclose that you are a Comodo reseller.

Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by agwa on Friday March 24, 2017 @11:41AM (#13949642)
I used to be a Symantec reseller too before I realized how bad they were. I only do business with CAs which I actually believe are good.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by sandGorgon on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:07PM (#13942373)
i have been seriously considering comodo. Their wildcard is not priced all that bad.
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by tdumitrescu on Thursday March 23, 2017 @03:59PM (#13943657)
Comodo, as in the Comodo which tried to trademark "Let's Encrypt" last year? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/800-pound-comodo...
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by looklittlejohn on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:15PM (#13942472)
According to the this survey I'm ruthlessly stealing from another comment, they have the biggest market share right now: https://w3techs.com/technologies/history_overview/ssl_certif...
Re:Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in Existing Symante... by lukegb on Thursday March 23, 2017 @04:35PM (#13944005)
That might be because they're the CA underlying Cloudflare's automated SSL issuance - at least for free tier customers.