| 1 |
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:17 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It's not that easy to do it with internal-only systems as Let's Encrypt |
| 4 |
> requires the hostname to be known externally. |
| 5 |
> And there are plenty of devices you do not want the whole internet to know |
| 6 |
> about. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
And in this situation LetsEncrypt does nothing but make security worse: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
* You have to trust the entire CA infrastructure rather than just your |
| 12 |
own CA. Many of the CAs are not just questionable, but like the |
| 13 |
governments of the USA and China, known to be engaged in large-scale |
| 14 |
man-in-the-middle attacks. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
* The LetsEncrypt certificates expire after three months, as opposed |
| 17 |
to 10+ years for a self-signed certificate. You're supposed to |
| 18 |
automate this... by running a script as root that takes input from |
| 19 |
the web? I'd rather not do that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
* LetsEncrypt verifies your identity over plain HTTP (like every other |
| 22 |
commercial CA), so it's all security theater in the first place. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
There are plenty of arguments against LE even for public sites, but for |
| 25 |
private ones, it's a lot more clear-cut... |
Archives