| 1 |
On Tuesday, 1 June 2021 12:40:28 BST Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:17 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 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 |
> And in this situation LetsEncrypt does nothing but make security worse: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> * You have to trust the entire CA infrastructure rather than just your |
| 11 |
> own CA. Many of the CAs are not just questionable, but like the |
| 12 |
> governments of the USA and China, known to be engaged in large-scale |
| 13 |
> man-in-the-middle attacks. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> * The LetsEncrypt certificates expire after three months, as opposed |
| 16 |
> to 10+ years for a self-signed certificate. You're supposed to |
| 17 |
> automate this... by running a script as root that takes input from |
| 18 |
> the web? I'd rather not do that. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> * LetsEncrypt verifies your identity over plain HTTP (like every other |
| 21 |
> commercial CA), so it's all security theater in the first place. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> There are plenty of arguments against LE even for public sites, but for |
| 24 |
> private ones, it's a lot more clear-cut... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So what would you recommend for someone in the case Joost cites? I'm in that |
| 27 |
position, being a home user of a small network but no registered Internet |
| 28 |
name. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Peter. |
Archives