News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Another free CA as an alternative to Let's Encrypt by tialaramex on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @06:27AM (#25197493)
The specification explicitly says what you want is the Wrong Thing™. The designers of SNI didn't leave this vague, they spelled it out first in RFC 3546 and most recently in RFC 6066

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6066#section-3

> "HostName" contains the fully qualified DNS hostname of the server, as understood by the client. The hostname is represented as a byte string using ASCII encoding without a trailing dot. †

So, when your web browser sends the hostname "news.ycombinator.com." that's not an "absolute hostname" that's just an error. Maybe you can demand that web browsers stop doing that, but they'll likely tell you they don't care, and you should stop writing URLs incorrectly.

† The trailing dot rule was in every version, but earliest sources talked about using UTF8 because they pre-date the insight that all this backend (ie not human-facing) stuff can use A-labels which are ASCII and avoid any complicated Unicode problems. This version just says to use ASCII here.

Re:Another free CA as an alternative to Let's Encrypt by kuschku on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @09:41AM (#25198798)
It's not just SNI that's the issue. Caddy also can't handle Host headers with trailing dots, where the spec explicitly states those should be handled.

So while the SNI error is clearly on browsers (and bugs have been already filed), the Host header issue is clearly on caddy (which caddy sees as wontfix)