Re:Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS c...
by johntash on Sunday June 28, 2020 @05:49PM
(#23672356)
> In other instances, where I haven't been able to do that, like for disparate VPN clients and such I will generally assign a RFC1918 address to it. Like service.vpn.ourdomain.com resolves to 10.92.83.200. As long as I can respond to a DNS challenge, I can still get a letsencrypt certificate for that domain.
This is basically what I've been doing lately as well. I'll create a wildcard letsencrypt cert for .vpn.ourdomain.com and then point the subdomains to internal IPs. You can even set up a split-dns where it responds to the challenge txt records for letsencrypt, but only the internal side responds to requests under .vpn.ourdomain.com.
Re:Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS c...
by elcritch on Sunday June 28, 2020 @05:46PM
(#23672334)
That works if you have control over the device/network. IoT devices usually don’t work that way. It’d be nice to be able to ensure the passcode to the device isn’t broadcast in clear http.
For these types of sites we run a local CA, and sign regular certificates for these domains and then distribute the CA certificate to our windows clients through a GPO. When put into the correct store, all our "locally-signed" certificates show as valid.
In other instances, where I haven't been able to do that, like for disparate VPN clients and such I will generally assign a RFC1918 address to it. Like service.vpn.ourdomain.com resolves to 10.92.83.200. As long as I can respond to a DNS challenge, I can still get a letsencrypt certificate for that domain.