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.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    And you still can’t self certify.

    It’s cute the big players are so concerned with my little security of my little home server.

    Or is there a bigger plan behind all this? Like pay more often, lock in to government controlled certs (already done I guess because they control DNS and you must have a “real” website name to get a free cert)?

    I feel it’s 50% security 50% bullshit.

      • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yes you can but the practicality of doing so is very limiting. Hell I ran my own CA for my own internal use and even I found it annoying.

        The entire CA ecosystem is terrible and only exists to ensure connections are encrypted at this point. There’s no validation or any sort of authority to say one site is better than another.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        But you have to manually accept this dangerous cert in the browser right?

        Very interesting actually, do you have any experience about it or other pointers? I might just set one up myself for my tenfingers sharing protocol

        • Unforeseen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          12 hours ago

          No, because it’s no longer dangerous if it’s trusted.

          You give your friends your public root and if applicable, intermediary certs. They install them and they now trust any certs issued by your CA.

          Source: I regularly build and deploy CA’s in corps

        • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          It’s pretty simple to set up. Generate CA, keep key and other private stuff stored securely, distribute public part of CA to whoever you want and sign all the things you wish with your very own CA. There’s loads of howtos and tools around to accomplish that. The tricky part is that manual work is needed to add that CA to every device you want to trust your certificates.

        • ℍ𝕖𝕝𝕚0𝕤@social.ggbox.fr
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          No that’s the point. If you import the CA certificate on your browser, any website that uses a cert that was signed by that CA will be trusted and accessible without warning.

          • fxdave@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I don’t know about iOS, but Android had support for this in the past. Now the support is partial. It’s no longer possible to install system-level certificates. Or at least they made it extremely inconvenient.

        • False@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          That’s a complaint about those phones not PKI in general then. Though it’s surprising their enterprise support won’t let you since that is (or was) a fairly common thing for businesses to do.

          • fxdave@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            That’s a fair point. However, on the practical side, it’s sad that I would have to root my gf’s phone to let her access the services we host.

            I ended up using a DynDNS and Caddy for managing my cert.

    • stratself@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Technically something like DANE can allow you to present DNSSEC-backed self-signed certs and even allow multi-domain matching that removes the need for SNI and Encrypted Client Hello… but until the browsers say it is supported, it’s not

      • RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        At some point there was a browser extension to support DANE (and Perspectives and similar approaches against centralization) but since then, browser vendors fixed that security flaw.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      And you still can’t can self certify.

      Skill issue, you’ve always been able to self certify. You just have to know where to drop the self signed cert or the parent/root cert you use to sign stuff.

      If you’re running windows, it’s trivial to make a self signed cert trusted. There’s an entire certificate store you can access that makes it easy enough you can double click it and install it and be on your way. Haven’t had a reason to figure it out on Linux, but I expect it won’t be super difficult.