News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on I looked through attacks in my access logs. Parent comment

Re:I looked through attacks in my access logs by nullindividual on Sunday January 28, 2024 @01:32PM (#39168399)
A compromised wildcard certificate has a much higher potential for abuse. The strong preference in IT security is a single-host or UCC (SAN) certificate.

Renewing a wildcard is also unfun when you have services which require a manual import.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I looked through attacks in my access logs by dfc on Sunday January 28, 2024 @05:00PM (#39170233)
Renewing any certificate that requires a manual import is not fun. Why are wildcard certs less fun to manually import than individual certificates?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I looked through attacks in my access logs by nullindividual on Sunday January 28, 2024 @05:29PM (#39170466)
Presumably one purchases a wildcard for multiple distinct systems.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I looked through attacks in my access logs by dfc on Sunday January 28, 2024 @06:51PM (#39171159)
Using them like that never occurred to me. I was thinking multiple sites on one host or vanity hostnames: dfc.example.com / nullindividual.example.com. etc.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:I looked through attacks in my access logs by nullindividual on Tuesday January 30, 2024 @08:53AM (#39190105)
Unless you're running some sort of automated system to churn out vanity host names (like an Azure or AWS would to provide you an OOTB URI), a UCC/SAN cert is a better choice.

More restrictive is better than less restrictive when it comes to certificates.

[ Parent | on HN ]