Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by jameshclark on Friday February 09, 2018 @08:10AM (#16339897)

I didn't see that post, but if you control the DNS for a domain you can use the DNS challenge with Let's Encrypt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by rb808 on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:03AM (#16340193)

Most people dont control a domain.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by Ajedi32 on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:46AM (#16340497)

Mozilla does though. So if their plan is to "offer subdomains on mozilla-iot.com" then they just need to set it up so that their infrastructure will fulfill the DNS challenge for the user's device when it requests a new cert.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by dredmorbius on Saturday February 10, 2018 @12:07AM (#16345989)

Which itself raises several questions:

1. Should most people have access to a domain they control?

2. Should there be a standard for nonroutable / nonpublic domains? (.lan and .localdomain are two of which I'm generally aware)

3. How should browsers deal with hosts and/or domains which are not and can not be on the public Internet?

4. How the hell did we get into this mess?

I'm kicking around the notion of relaxing various aspects of the problem domain and seeing where we end up. It's mind-numbingly bad, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by dredmorbius on Saturday February 10, 2018 @01:35PM (#16348736)

Also: if we don't use the domain registration system to proxy for individual sites and presence on the Internet, then what alternatives might be substituted?

Note that domains don't solve the problem of a third-party controlling your point-of-access or presence, they only move it elsewhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by falcor84 on Friday February 09, 2018 @01:17PM (#16342523)

Maybe this is a problem.

I'd say that in the world we live in, getting a domain is as useful as getting a passport. It costs a bit of money to get and renew and is a bit of a hassle, but it opens a lot of doors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by gsich on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:19AM (#16340305)

Then you usually don't need a certificate from a CA. Just selfsign.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by fps on Friday February 09, 2018 @11:40AM (#16341623)

This seems like it's going in circles, but, if you selfsign modern browsers display a big scary warning. If you're making a device or software meant to live behind a firewall and to be accessed from a browser, users will either have to install your CA in their browsers, or deal with the big scary warning. Both of which are bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by gsich on Friday February 09, 2018 @11:43AM (#16341647)

If you don't have a domain, chances are that you don't provide service to normal users. Or to users at all besides yourself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by pessimizer on Friday February 09, 2018 @01:15PM (#16342503)

> chances are that you don't provide service to normal users. Or to users at all besides yourself.

I think that's the point. Creating friction that scares normie users when people are using web UIs on local networks puts non-cloud based products at a disadvantage against the centralized giants.

[ Parent | on HN ]