Let’s Encrypt will be reducing the validity period of the certificates we issue. We currently issue certificates valid for 90 days, which will be cut in half to 45 days by 2028.
This change is being made along with the rest of the industry, as required by the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements, which set the technical requirements that we must follow. All publicly-trusted Certificate Authorities like Let’s Encrypt will be making similar changes. Reducing how long certificates are valid for helps improve the security of the internet, by limiting the scope of compromise, and making certificate revocation technologies more efficient.
So what’s the floor here realistically, are they going to lower it to 30 days, then 14, then 2, then 1? Will we need to log in every morning and expect to refresh every damn site cert we connect to soon?
It is ignoring the elephant in the room – the central root CA system. What if that is ever compromised?
Certificate pinning was a good idea IMO, giving end-users control over trust without these top-down mandated cert update schedules. Don’t get me wrong, LetsEncrypt has done and is doing a great service within the current infrastructure we have, but …
I kind of wish we could just partition the entire internet into the current “commercial public internet” and a new (old, redux) “hobbyist private internet” where we didn’t have to assume every single god-damned connection was a hostile entity. I miss the comraderie, the shared vibe, the trust. Yeah I’m old.
You can already get 6-day certificates if you want to https://letsencrypt.org/2025/01/16/6-day-and-ip-certs
Is this the same trust that would infect a box in under a minute if not behind a router?
The same trust of needing to scan anything you downloaded for script kiddie grade backdoors?
Zero click ActiveX / js exploits?
Man I’m probably the same age and those are some intense rose colored glasses 😅
Oh, definitely rose-coloured, but I am thinking even before those days… like when access to Usenet was restricted to colleges and universities, dial-up BBSes … and I didn’t use Windows or MacOS at all back then. ActiveX and js didn’t even exist back then. Boot-sector floppy viruses did, but those were easy to guard against.
But you always did, it was always being abused, regularly. That’s WHY we now use secure connections.
I think I’m just not picking up whether you’re actually trying to pitch a technical solution, or just wishing for a perfect world without crime.
More the latter :) … if only we could all just get along and be nicer to each other. Sigh.
Fair enough lol, can’t argue with that.
Automate your certificate renewals. You should be automating updates for security anyway.
That’s a lot easier said that done for hobbyists that need a certificate for their home server. I will give you a real world example. I run Ubuntu Linux (but without snaps) on my main desktop machine, however like the person you replied to I am old and I don’t have a good memory so when I do use Linux I try to take the easiest approach possible. But I also have a server running on a Raspberry Pi, and another family member (that has a Mac) that I exchange XMPP-based instant messages with. The server runs Prosody, and on my Ubuntu box I run Gajim (the one from the apt repository which is version 1.8.4, I have no idea why they won’t put a newer version in the repo). The other family member uses some MacOS-based XMPP client. The problem is that if there is not a valid certificate on the server, Gajim refuses to send or receive anything other than plain-text messages. It won’t sent or receive files or pictures, etc. unless the certificate is valid.
However the Raspberry Pi does other things as well (it would be silly to dedicate a Pi to just running Prosody) and one of those other things puts a pseudo-web server of sorts on port 80, which is only accessible from the local network. So I can’t use Certbot because it insists on being able to connect to a web server. Even if I had a general web server on the Pi, which I don’t have and don’t want, it would be restricted for local access only. Also, I’m not paying for a DNS address for my own home server. What I found I could do is get a DuckDNS address (they are free) and use that to get a LE certificate. But the procedure is very manual and kind of convoluted, you have to ssh into the server using two separate sessions and enter some information in each one, because of the absolutely asinine way LE’s renewal process works if you don’t have a web server. I hate doing it every 90 days and if I have to do it every 45 days I’ll probably just give up on sending and receiving files.
I should also mention that it took me hours to figure out the procedure i am using now, and it seems so stupid because I have that server locked down with two firewalls (one on the router and then iptables on the server) I don’t even want a certificate but the designers of Gajim in their infinite wisdom(?) decided not to give users the option to in effect say “I trust this server, just ignore an expired or missing certificate.” And the designers of LE never seemed to consider that some people might need a certificate that are not running a web server (and don’t want to run one) and provide some automatic mechanism for renewing in that situation. And just because someone uses Linux does not mean we are all programmers or expert script writers. I can follow “cookbook” type instructions (that is the ONLY way I got Prosody set up) but I can’t write a script or program to automate this process (again, I’m OLD).
I know somebody’s going to be tempted to say I should use some other software (other that Prosody or Gajim). I tried other IM clients and Gajim is the only one that works the way I expect it to. As for Prosody, I have from time to time tried setting up other XMPP servers that people have suggested and could never get any of them to work. As I said, had I not found “cookbook” type instructions for setting up Prosody I would probably not be running that either, it was a PITA to get working but not that it IS working I don’t want to go through that again. And Prosody isn’t the problem, it works perfectly fine without a valid certificate, but pretty much every Linux IM client I have tried either loses functionality or won’t work at all if the server doesn’t have a valid certificate. And no I don’t run or use Docker, nor do I have any desire to (especially on a Raspberry Pi).
But can you imagine the load on their servers should it come to this? And god forbid it goes down for a few hours and every person in the world is facing SSL errors because Let’s Encrypt can’t create new ones.
This continued shortening of lifespans on these certs is untenable at best. Personally I have never run into a situation where a cert was stolen or compromised but obviously that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I also feel like this is meant to automate all cert production which is nice if you can. Right now, at my job, all cert creation requires manually generating a CSR, submit it to a website, wait for manager approval, and then wait for creation. Then go download the cert and install it manually.
If I have to do this everyday for all my certs I’m not going to be happy. Yes this should be automated and central IT is supposed to be working on it but I’m not holding my breath.
I doubt they will drop below 1-2 weeks. Any service outage would turn into a ddos when service was restored.
Yep. Kinda what I was thinking.
The entire renewal process is fairly cheap, resource wise. 7 day certificates are already a thing.
In terms of bandwidth you could easily renew a billion certificates a day over a gigabit connection, and in terms of performance I recon even without specialized hardware a single system could keep up with that, though that also depends on the signature algorithms employed in the future of course.
The dependence on these servers is the far bigger problem I’d say.
This shortening of lifetimes is a slow change, so I hope there will be solutions before it becomes an issue. Like keeping multiple copies of certificates alive with different providers, so the one in use can silently fall through when one provider stops working. Currently there are too few providers for my taste, that would have to improve for such a system to be viable.
Maybe one day you’ll select a bundle of 5 certificate services with similar policies for creating your certificate the way you currently select a single one in certbot or acme.sh
This is one of the reasons they’re reducing the validity - to try and convince people to automate the renewal process.
That and there’s issues with the current revocation process (for incorrectly issued certificates, or certificates where the private key was leaked or stored insecurely), and the most effective way to reduce the risk is to reduce how long any one certificate can be valid for.
A leaked key is far less useful if it’s only valid or 47 days from issuance, compared to three years. (note that the max duration was reduced from 3 years to 398 days earlier this year).
From https://www.digicert.com/blog/tls-certificate-lifetimes-will-officially-reduce-to-47-days:
2020 really has been the longest year of my life
Oh… Oops. Hahaha
Partition the internet… Like during the Morris worm of '88, where they had to pull off regional networks to prevent the machines from being reinfected?
The good old days were, maybe, not that good. :)
Well that could be considered the point where we lost our innocence, yeah. :(
Imagine trying to do this (excluding China, Russia and some middle eastern or african countries) in the western world.
I would assume total anarchy (especially in the stock trade lol)
Certbot’s default timer checks twice a day if it’s old enough to be be due for a renewal… So a change from 90 to 1 day will in practice make no difference already…
Good point. On that note I am very happy having moved my home server from Apache to Caddy. The auto cert config is very nice.
LE is beta-testing a 7-day validity, IIRC.
No, those are expected or even required to be automated.
7-day validity is great because they’re exempt from OCSP and CRL. Let’s Encrypt is actually trying 6-day validity, not 7: https://letsencrypt.org/2025/01/16/6-day-and-ip-certs
Another feature Let’s Encrypt is adding along with this is IP certificates, where you can add an IP address as an alternate name for a certificate.
Ah, well. I only remembered something about a week.
The current plan is for the floor to be 47 days. https://www.digicert.com/blog/tls-certificate-lifetimes-will-officially-reduce-to-47-days, and this is not until 2029 in order to give people sufficient time to adjust. Of course, individual certificate authorities can choose to have lower validity periods than 47 days if they want to.
Essentially, the goal is for everyone to automatically renew the certificates once per month, but include some buffer time in case of issues.
The best approach for securing our CA system is the “certificate transparency log”. All issued certificates must be stored in separate, public location. Browsers do not accept certificates that are not there.
This makes it impossible for malicious actors to silently create certificates. They would leave traces.
Isn’t this just CRL in reverse? And CRL sucks or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Part of the point of cryptographically signing a cert is so you don’t have to do this if you trust the issuer.
Cryptography already makes it infeasible for a malicious actor to create a fake cert. The much more common attack vector is having a legitimate cert’s private key compromised.
No, these are completely separate issues.
This is just one example why we have certificate transparency. Revocation wouldn’t be useful if it isn’t even known which certificates need revocation.
Source
Or the more likely a rouge certificate authority giving out certs it shouldn’t.
This seems like a good idea.
The only disadvantage I see is that all my personal subdomains (e.g. immich.name.com and jellyfin) are forever stored in a public location. I wouldn’t call it a privacy nightmare, yet it isn’t optimal.
There are two workarounds:
But how to automate wildcard certificate generation? That requires a change of the txt record and namecheap for instance got no mechanism for that to automatically happen on cert bot action
Doesn’t caddy support that (name cheap txt mod) via a plug-in?
I haven’t tried it yet, but the plugin made it sound possible. I’m planning to automate on next expiration… When I get to it ;)
I did already compile caddy with the plugin, just haven’t generated my name cheap token and tested.
There are some nameserver providers that have an API.
When you register a domain, you can choose which nameserver you like. There are nameservers that work with certbot, choose one that does.
Namecheap supports this according to docs. I just haven’t tested yet.
Not exactly what you mean because there are also bad actors but take a look at i2p, in some ways it feels like an retro internet.
Seeing as most root CA are stored offline compromising a server turned off is not really possible.
I’m more annoyed that I have 10 year old gear that doesn’t have automation for this.
Signing (intermediate) certs have been compromised before. That means a bad actor can issue fake certs that are validated up to your root ca certs
While you can invalidate that signing cert, without useful and ubiquitous revocation lists, there’s nothing you can do to propagate that.
A compromised signing certs, effectively means invalidating the ca cert, to limit the damage
Oh, I’m really just pining for the days before the ‘Eternal September’, I suppose. We can’t go back, I know. :/