| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Being the maintainer of mirrors.soeasyto.com, which is currently |
| 4 |
HTTP-only, having already the setup in place for LetsEncrypt on my |
| 5 |
server, I'm about to set it up for my mirror. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Anyway, does it have to be HTTPS only ? ie., do I also have to set it up |
| 8 |
to redirect HTTP requests over HTTPS (it's possible) ? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
And same question as another maintainer before, do I have to create a |
| 11 |
ticket on b.g.o. in order to notify of that change ? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Thanks in advance, |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Regards, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Xavier - SoEasyTo Mirrors Manager |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Le 2019-04-14 10:10, Fredrik Eriksson a écrit : |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Hi, |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I'm the maintainer of mirror.mdfnet.se. The future of this mirror is |
| 24 |
> not |
| 25 |
> entirely clear (it may have to be removed in a few weeks/months), but |
| 26 |
> for now I've added a letsencrypt certificate, opened it up for https |
| 27 |
> and |
| 28 |
> will make sure to maintain it for as long as the mirror is available. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> /Feffe |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> On 2019-04-13 08:28, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
>> Hi! |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> Upstream Chrome is discussing a potential change that we try to block |
| 37 |
>> users following a HTTPS->HTTP for high-risk files, including tarballs. |
| 38 |
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2019Apr/0004.html |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> Further below is some quick analysis I did on the state of HTTP for |
| 41 |
>> the mirrors |
| 42 |
>> that are presently listed only as HTTP. |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> In the era of LetsEncrypt, how many mirror administrators have a |
| 45 |
>> little time to |
| 46 |
>> add HTTPS to their mirrors, along with a cronjob to auto-refresh the |
| 47 |
>> certificates? |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> The state of HTTP/HTTPS on Gentoo mirrors: |
| 50 |
>> 59 mirrors total |
| 51 |
>> ===== |
| 52 |
>> 1 HTTPS-only |
| 53 |
>> 27 HTTP+HTTPS |
| 54 |
>> 31 HTTP-only |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
>> Of the HTTP-only mirrors, only 1 is on a non-standard port. |
| 57 |
>> |
| 58 |
>> Of the HTTP-only mirrors, I went to test if of them had working HTTPS |
| 59 |
>> that wasn't documented in distfiles.xml, and if not, what responses |
| 60 |
>> there were (I think I got an off-by-one try to summarize the errors). |
| 61 |
>> |
| 62 |
>> 2 200 OK |
| 63 |
>> 24 No connection: Connection refused, Connection timed out, No route |
| 64 |
>> to host |
| 65 |
>> 3 Horrible SSL certs |
| 66 |
>> 2 SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN/The name in the certificate does not match |
| 67 |
>> the expected, but everything else was otherwise good. |
| 68 |
>> 1 HTTP on port 443 (SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG) |
| 69 |
>> ==== |
| 70 |
>> 32 errors |
| 71 |
>> |
| 72 |
>> Horrible SSL certs, error breakdown; some mirrors had MORE than one |
| 73 |
>> error in their cert: |
| 74 |
>> 3 - SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER/The certificate issuer is unknown [1] |
| 75 |
>> 2 - The certificate chain uses insecure algorithm (RSA-SHA1) |
| 76 |
>> 3 - SEC_ERROR_EXPIRED_CERTIFICATE/The certificate chain uses expired |
| 77 |
>> certificate [2] |
| 78 |
>> 3 - SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN/The name in the certificate does not |
| 79 |
>> match the expected. |
| 80 |
>> 1 - SEC_ERROR_UNRECOGNIZED_OID [3] |
| 81 |
>> |
| 82 |
>> [1] SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER: |
| 83 |
>> - self-signed |
| 84 |
>> - defunct CA |
| 85 |
>> - missing intermediate |
| 86 |
>> |
| 87 |
>> [2] SEC_ERROR_EXPIRED_CERTIFICATE: |
| 88 |
>> Past-expiry ranges 1 month to 4 years ago! |
| 89 |
>> |
| 90 |
>> [3] SEC_ERROR_UNRECOGNIZED_OID: |
| 91 |
>> OpenSSL & GnuTLS handled this cert, but NSS failed on it. |
Archives