Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

30% Positive

Analyzed from 1565 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#certificates#https#compliance#certs#short#lived#down#incident#issue#let

Discussion (75 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jaasabout 7 hours ago
This is a compliance incident, we should be issuing again shortly.

Update: Issuance is back up.

Update: Preliminary incident report:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2038351

theduderogerabout 6 hours ago
can you update the status page with this information?
rbaudibertabout 7 hours ago
Thanks for the assurance, jaas! Keep up the good work
washingupliquidabout 7 hours ago
Real soon now?
gabeioabout 7 hours ago
> This is a compliance incident

Uh. I don't know if I like the sound of that...

john_strinlaiabout 6 hours ago
"compliance incident" is the catchall for everything from a spelling error on a CPS (certification practice statement) or being one second late on revocation, all the way up to to key compromise.

it is almost always closer to the spelling mistake side than it is the key compromise side of the spectrum.

a peak at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=CA%20Progra... will show that most compliance issues, to the general public, are quite mundane.

walrus01about 7 hours ago
Indeed. "Compliance" can mean some internal audit/monitoring system has tripped and requires in depth investigation and preservation of logging, or it can mean "federal law enforcement with badges are right now standing in our datacenter and/or NOC serving a court order".
tptacekabout 7 hours ago
At times like this it's worth remembering that message boards strongly favor whatever narrative is going to be most fun and exciting to talk about.
eqvinoxabout 6 hours ago
Federal law enforcement in your DC isn't something you'd call a "compliance" issue, that's not what that term means. Yes it's various derivatives of the English word "comply", but this is a field of well-defined verbiage, and that ain't it. Compliance means they failed (or are being questioned) about following particular practices that they have agreed to, nothing else really.

NB: "legal compliance" is another term. So is "{legal,lawful} enforcement"

mark_roundabout 7 hours ago
That's really not good. Fortunately I'm not using any short-lived certificates like the recently announced 6 day certs, so have some breathing room. Without further details, I'd imagine anyone with a short-lived cert is getting a bit sweaty right now.

Let's Encrypt has become one of those pieces of critical Internet infrastructure that just quietly hums away in the background, the fact that they've stopped ALL issuance is deeply concerning.

jaasabout 6 hours ago
Stopping all issuance is an pretty standard response if a CA thinks what they are issuing might be non-compliant in any way. It's an action we're required to take. It's not necessarily a sign of a more dramatic failure mode or key compromise. That said, the impact is the same for as long as the downtime lasts so it is unfortunate and we're sorry for the disruption.

I don't think the premise behind short lived (six day) certificates being viable is that CA issuance never goes down. Sure, the runway is shorter, but not that short. Most down time is a few hours or less, which is not a problem for six day certificates that should be renewed every three days.

Short lived certificates are optional though, so if it's not worth it to you there are longer lifetime options.

walrus01about 7 hours ago
Considering the open source nature of Letsencrypt, I wonder what the barriers/costs would be (theoretically) to a wealthy benefactor who wanted to duplicate its server side infrastructure and a core staffing level of persons, and fund a "parallel" equally trusted, alternative entity with a solid governing board. Same general idea how Acton funded the Signal foundation.

Somewhere that none of the physical infrastructure/hosting environment overlapped with existing Letsencrypt stuff so that the failure of one entity would have zero blast radius affecting the other.

I know there's a long and complicated process to go through to become a trusted root CA and get your CA public cert auto-installed in every OS and browser trust store. Indeed in the early days of letsencrypt I recall their root CA certs were signed by other older root CAs.

dochtmanabout 6 hours ago
A lot of Let’s Encrypt is not the software but a bunch of auditing and process that ensure compliance and make it legible to the required auditors.
walrus01about 6 hours ago
I understand there's probably a big thorny problem of duplicating the corporate process/policies on the human level that ensure compliance, but is the back-end software pipelining stuff to CT logs not also something that can be replicated? Or is it not part of the server side stuff which has been open sourced?

https://letsencrypt.org/docs/ct-logs/

computer23about 6 hours ago
Google has their own free ACME endpoint: https://pki.goog/
nijaveabout 6 hours ago
ZeroSSL should also be drop in
jcimsabout 7 hours ago
I just find it incredible that in 30+ years the industry hasn't adapted one bit to the brittle failure modes of certificates. I did some subcontract work with Verisign to deploy their CA infrastructure back in the early oughties and it felt like a solution was overdue way back then. I was at Google in the teensies when gmail broke due to expired SMTP certs. WAAAY overdue by then. Here we are, a decade later and it's still the same lol.
yjftsjthsd-habout 7 hours ago
Other than automating renewal - which we have made huge strides on - what adaption would you want to see?
jcimsabout 3 hours ago
The number one thing for me would be to standardize methods to implement soft failures. Minimally in standard clients and libraries the ability to warn when certs are nearing expiration. Cert extensions to declare lifecycle expectations and possibly even warning endpoints for notification. Basically some way to empirically look at a valid cert and know something is wrong before it fails.

There are all sorts of potential privacy/security issues with any feature built in this area so it would have to be done carefully, but I think useful improvements could easily be made.

AlotOfReadingabout 6 hours ago
I'd like to see better support for networks that aren't connected to the broader internet, or moving away from X.509. Note that these are contradictory. X.509 was intentionally designed to support offline verification and has a lot of elaborate ceremony to support it (like all the rest of the OSI stack). The industry just doesn't, so we get the worst of both worlds.
packetlostabout 7 hours ago
I mean, what's the alternative? I struggle to come up with a solution that doesn't boil down to the same primitive operations and trust model.
Havocabout 7 hours ago
>pieces of critical Internet infrastructure that just quietly hums away in the background,

And donation supported no less

cachiusabout 7 hours ago
Wonder what incident that even could have been.
nottorpabout 6 hours ago
> like the recently announced 6 day certs

Just you wait for the 1 hour and 59 minutes certs! For security!

mchermabout 7 hours ago
There is one little-discussed down side to ever shorter-lived certificates...
dizhnabout 7 hours ago
Letsencrypt is not the only acme authority. ZeroSSL is the other popular one. There are others.
devrandabout 7 hours ago
If you're using ACME to handle certificate rotation, can't you just configure multiple providers?
Analemma_about 7 hours ago
Only if you’re reissuing right before expiration, which is a stupid thing to do. If you have a 47-day cert, best practice is to reissue on day 30, meaning LE would need to be down for more than two weeks before anything went wrong.

If this outage breaks your system, that’s entirely on you, not Let’s Encrypt.

eqvinoxabout 7 hours ago
Short-lived = 6 days. Even if you reissue after 2 or 3 days, that's… not a lot of breathing room.
strikingabout 7 hours ago
You have to opt in, and they are honest about the tradeoffs when discussing them:

> Short-lived certificates are opt-in and we have no plan to make them the default at this time. Subscribers that have fully automated their renewal process should be able to switch to short-lived certificates easily if they wish, but we understand that not everyone is in that position and generally comfortable with this significantly shorter lifetime. We hope that over time everyone moves to automated solutions and we can demonstrate that short-lived certificates work well.

https://letsencrypt.org/2026/01/15/6day-and-ip-general-avail...

bakiesabout 7 hours ago
3-4 days is a ton of breathing room
rcontiabout 7 hours ago
You're holding your 6-day cert wrong
bakiesabout 7 hours ago
Chill, it's 2 hours. They recommend renewing at the first third of the 160 hrs.
cachiusabout 7 hours ago
Thought that was the iPhone 6
jameshartabout 7 hours ago
gbear605about 7 hours ago
Only as long as LE isn’t down for 17 days, then we’re in big trouble.
bravetravelerabout 7 hours ago
It's certainly an incident when ceasing to issue certificates... after doing absolutely everything, including limiting lifetime, to encourage their frequent renewal
kalmarvabout 7 hours ago
Hopefully it's just a technical issue and not something like a key compromise. This could have disastrous effects considering how much of the web runs on LE certs these days.

Granted if it's configured properly everyone should have 30 days of leeway before having to issue new certs...

mark_roundabout 7 hours ago
"We have been made aware of a potential incident and are shutting down all issuance" seems to lean towards the latter and not simply a technical issue :(
tptacekabout 7 hours ago
Josh Aas is on the thread. It's a compliance issue, they expect to be issuing shortly.
rvnxabout 7 hours ago
What if they get kicked out of trusted roots because non-compliant ?
Dylan16807about 5 hours ago
What makes you think that?
x86aabout 7 hours ago
They had scheduled maintenance a few hours ago, https://letsencrypt.status.io/pages/maintenance/55957a99e800...
hosteurabout 6 hours ago
cedwsabout 7 hours ago
Discord is out too right now, probably unrelated though.
aromanabout 7 hours ago
Just speculating, but I don't think it's unrelated. Discord heavily utilizes Cloudflare, and Cloudflare uses Let's Encrypt for a certificate issuance. If they happened to have a certificate signing dependency in some operational rollout today, I think it could explain it. Certainly the timing is very correlated.
everfrustratedabout 3 hours ago
Cloudflare doesn't issue let's encrypt certs
winstonwinstonabout 6 hours ago
On my account they always serve Google issued certificates. There is also Let’s encrypt certificate but it is not used though. I guess that’s a fail-safe.
nijaveabout 6 hours ago
In Cloudflare Enterprise you can pick either or leave it on auto. Iirc there's a 3rd option but I don't know if it's still supported (Terraform and SDKs used to have it in the enum)

https://developers.cloudflare.com/ssl/reference/certificate-...

cedwsabout 7 hours ago
I guess we'll find out but it would be surprising if they use Let's Encrypt for their backend services. The front door is issued by Google Trust Services.
reaperducerabout 6 hours ago
Just speculating

Then why post? HN is for informed discussion, not every random thought in someone's head.

Certainly the timing is very correlated.

I had chocolate ice cream for breakfast. Certainly the timing is very corrolated [sic].

DerekLabout 7 hours ago
The title is misspelled. It's “Let's Encrypt”, with an apostrophe.
jstylesabout 7 hours ago
Hopefully just a minor mississuance incident and not something more serious.
croemerabout 6 hours ago
Issuance was stopped almost 2 hours ago: May 8, 2026 18:37 UTC.
Advertisement
bstsbabout 7 hours ago
in other news, Digicert's Secure Site Pro certificates are down to only $5,880.00 yearly for one wildcard domain!
baigyabout 7 hours ago
dang I'll have to return to paid certs again?
t1234sabout 7 hours ago
How much of the internet is going to fail because of this?
nicolas_17about 6 hours ago
None, unless someone is renewing their certificates only 2 hours before they expire, which is a dumb thing to do.
walrus01about 6 hours ago
It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how much of 'the internet' would still find a way to communicate with each other and fix the problem if somebody waved a magic wand and all http and https servers and clients magically disappeared worldwide instantly.

For instance some of the folks who run core BGP at medium to large sized ISPs would revert back to a few legacy IRC channels and find each other to chat and figure out WTF is going on.

"the internet" would still exist, a subset of the application layer stuff that runs on top it wouldn't...

ben0x539about 6 hours ago
I bet we'd see a bunch of unexpected breakage in presumed-to-be-lower-level-than-http[s] infrastructure so that eg. your legacy IRC server goes down because it's running on rented hardware and the hosting provider's operations rely on some internal http services.
walrus01about 6 hours ago
This is extremely likely in the case of many automated provisioning, billing, and web interface control panel systems for shared hosting platforms, VPS, virtual machine service providers that likely do something https to https internally to communicate between tooling.

In my intentionally absurd theoretical scenario, what would remain up would be the bare metal in colocation in certain service providers' environments...

essephabout 7 hours ago
Some other internet things going on to Discord, Cloudflare, and others.

Unsure if related in any way.

noplacelikehomeabout 7 hours ago
Here's hoping it's not another security nightmare...