Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

43% Positive

Analyzed from 1794 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#days#certificate#expired#certificates#more#expiration#renew#let#cert#should

Discussion (80 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jaasabout 3 hours ago
Let's Encrypt has been working normally for most of the day. There was a ~90 minute period during which some of our users would have received a higher error rate due to upstream networking issues, but the majority of requests were successful even during that period.

It seems our status.io notes are being misinterpreted as much more severe than they were intended to reflect.

Edit: Note that this was written in response to a previous submission title implying that Let's Encrypt was entirely down most of the day.

widdakayabout 2 hours ago
I'm not sure if your higher error rate is sticky per user or something, but I've tried 10+ times throughout the day and have had 0 successes. They all come back as internal server error. That's why I eventually posted.
jaasabout 2 hours ago
It would not have been sticky for the entire day. If it was sticky at all, it would have been only during the 90 minute period I referenced. It's most likely that there is some other issue with how you're requesting the cert. Folks can help debug at: https://community.letsencrypt.org/
widdakayabout 2 hours ago
I ran the exact same command now and it's working, so it is possible I was unlucky and was hitting all the worst possible cases.
sgtabout 2 hours ago
Could it be that he was simply throttled while retrying? That seems plausible, and it would make it seem like a long outage.
widdakayabout 2 hours ago
I updated the post title to say (Fixed) now.
teekertabout 2 hours ago
Why are you trying? Doesn’t Caddy (or something) just takes care of this well in advance and should have no issues with one or several days of my service at all at any time?

Edit: my bad. I’ve tried as well recently, when you’re rushing to get your new domain up of course…

dlcarrierabout 3 hours ago
That explains why one of my IoT vendors is using an expired certificate.

I wish Firefox would just give a mild warning for a recently expired certificate, instead of treating it the same as a true man-in-the-middle attach. It's not like someone who couldn't factor the private key in 200 days could in 201 days or even 300 days.

I'm convinced that we'd have better security, if we didn't have so much security theater. You'd think TLS is useless, from the warning my phone gives if I connected to a public Wi-Fi AP, but then again there's nothing in TLS (or WPA) that prevents it from being used in a way that is completely useless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1si1y5lvkk

jaasabout 3 hours ago
> That explains why one of my IoT vendors is using an expired certificate.

I don't think so. There was a dip in success rates for 90 minutes today, but nobody should be renewing their certificate within 90 minutes of expiration. If you're at that point, something went wrong weeks ago.

mannyvabout 2 hours ago
"nobody should be renewing their certificate within 90 minutes of expiration"

You obviously haven't worked with hardware guys.

"I mean, what's the point of those last 30 days if you need to renew it 30 days before expiration? Why not just renew it before it expires? If I'm required to renew it 30 days before the expiration date then the expiration date is a lie, isn't it?"

ozimabout 2 hours ago
If they make 7 days grace period then expiration date will be a lie and of course every one will use grace period like it would be normal thing ;)
selcuka40 minutes ago
> If I'm required to renew it 30 days before the expiration date then the expiration date is a lie, isn't it?

Many countries won't let you enter if your passport expires less than 6 months after your planned departure date. Basically the effective validity of a passport is 0.5 years less than the period you pay for.

LtWorfabout 2 hours ago
> weeks ago

How long do you think a certificate lives?

jaasabout 2 hours ago
Mostly 90 days, and we recommend renewing at 60 days for 90 day certs. That gives more than four weeks of leeway.

If you're one of the few early adopters of short-lived (6-day) certs you should renew at 3 days, giving you 3 days for a successful renewal. A 90 minute outage, even if it was a full outage, would not interfere with a successful renewal.

bebopabout 2 hours ago
90 days moving to 45 but you can and should renew earlier than that. Automating this process means that you should be request a new certificates roughly 60 days (or 30 soon) after the issuance of the previous certificate. That way you would have plenty of time to deal with renewal issues. The process for renewal should have back off and retries built in. This prevents a situation where a down time for the issuer means that your production environments are non-functional.
Biganonabout 2 hours ago
They work at letsencrypt, I'm pretty sure they know.
hannob21 minutes ago
There are reasons browsers do things the way they do.

Experience and user studies have shown that users have a hard time decoding what error messages mean. "This certificate is expired, but only for a little while" isn't meaningful for people who don't have a mental model of what a certificate is.

Furthermore, "downgrading" warnings increases the incentive to ignore issues, potentially causing more problems down the line.

dingalingabout 2 hours ago
> I wish Firefox would just give a mild warning for a recently expired certificate

Nope, if the SSL industry continues to insist on increasingly short cert lifetimes then I want Firefox to give no quarter when a cert expires.

Play by their rules and fall by their rules too.

mannyvabout 2 hours ago
Certificate expiry is less severe than an untrusted issuer or a host mismatch.

The former is most likely an administrative error (ie: someone forgot to renew, or the auto-renew is failing). The latter is more likely to be an MTM attack.

I'm not sure how you would use an expired cert as an attack vector. By loading in an old cert into an expired domain so you could spoof older content?

mcpherrinmabout 2 hours ago
If a key is breached, the certificate can be revoked, but that revocation goes away once the certificate is expired.

Expiry is a pretty fundamental part of the security model of certificates.

tgsovlerkhgselabout 2 hours ago
Revocation information may not be available for expired certificates. Not that it matters much because the last time I checked revocation didn't really work for non-expired certificates either, but I think that (+ the risk of people treating expired certificates as worthless and thus increasing the risk of exposure) is the main reason.

Also of course domains changing owners, but again... I don't think we have good monitoring for that during the current long lifetime, so maybe a grace period where a warning is shown but it's easier to click through would be a good idea. Perhaps combined with a requirement to keep revocation information (and keep revoking expired certificates) X days past expiry.

MobiusHorizonsabout 2 hours ago
How does that help? Seems like mostly the end user suffers.
bruce511about 2 hours ago
But it's only the extreme warning that alerts the website (usually via a customer complaining) that the cert hasn't been renewed. Having the lesser warning just kicks the can down the road.

The IoT should have updated the certs weeks in advance. If they haven't done it by day 0 then their process is broken and delaying the scary warning to say day +5 won't solve anything.

tgsovlerkhgselabout 2 hours ago
A warning with a clear clickthrough button would work for alerting - the default TLS warnings are designed to be somewhat hard to bypass to make people think twice.
fragmedeabout 2 hours ago
omg new tom7!
Kessekiabout 3 hours ago
To be clear, “Degraded Performance” means just that, not “down.” Let’s Encrypt’s issuance is mostly working fine.
widdakayabout 3 hours ago
I have tried many times to renew my certs and have had 0 successes throughout today. It seems to be 100% degraded to me.
Kessekiabout 3 hours ago
That’s unexpected. Please post details on the “Help” topic of the Let’s Encrypt community forum so that folks can take a look.
saagarjhaabout 3 hours ago
I see you are unfamiliar with status page-ese. “Degraded performance” is a term which means some form of “the entire datacenter is probably on fire”.
Kessekiabout 3 hours ago
Although I only post here personally, I work for Let’s Encrypt.
number6about 3 hours ago
Thanks you for your work!
ofrzetaabout 2 hours ago
It would be better to say this upfront. I am not blaming you in any way but this would prevent responses such as the parent's (hopefully).
dlcarrierabout 3 hours ago
Let them know that they're having an outage. If their monitors aren't telling them so, they might need to host them off-site.
AceJohnny2about 2 hours ago
A common confusion; this interpretation only applies to OVH.

ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/millions-of-websites-o...

xaropeabout 2 hours ago
That would a Microsoft'ese, "Some regions are encountering issues" => "The entire world is down, but our status page is working"
AceJohnny2about 3 hours ago
I thought it meant "electricity has ceased to be a physical phenomenon in the general vicinity of our servers"
gib444about 3 hours ago
What % of requests succeeded vs failed? How many certificates were issued during the outage vs the average? That might actually clear things up
saagarjhaabout 3 hours ago
Seems not ideal for an entity who seems to be pushing for shorter expiration periods all the time
Dylan16807about 3 hours ago
If it goes past 24 hours, that becomes a real worry.

If anyone is renewing certificates with less than a day remaining, that's an issue on their end far more than anything else.

xp84about 3 hours ago
I think it’s mostly Apple and maybe Google who have the hard-ons for the shortest expiries possible.
fragmedeabout 2 hours ago
To be fair, if someone managed to steal a set of keys to Gmail.com and icloud.com, I would want them to expire as short a time as possible too.
spraglabout 2 hours ago
That is right, but one thing is not like the other. You have always been free to set expiry low on your own certificates, but that is not the same as enforcing it on everyones ceritificate.
notrealyme123about 2 hours ago
I think revoking them would be better in such a case.
tonyhart7about 3 hours ago
isn't this the other way around ??? because shorter expiration time resulting on more issuing cert and therefore make it more prone to downtime
pibakerabout 3 hours ago
What are the viable alternatives to LE? And in case none exists, what does it take to build one?

Requirements: free, available to everyone, automation friendly, issues certificates that are actually considered trustworthy by other parties.

treeskneesabout 3 hours ago
ZeroSSL – free 90-day certs via ACME, also has a web UI for cert management

Google Trust Services – free ACME certs, requires a Google account for registration

SSL.com Free DV SSL – offers free 90-day certs through ACME

polpoabout 3 hours ago
I use acme.sh for certs on my personal server and was a little surprised when it started using ZeroSSL by default. Despite being more "corporate" I decided to roll with it and it's worked just fine.
curbenabout 1 hour ago
JumpCrisscrossabout 2 hours ago
Have the EU or Canada pushed to launch an analog of their own?

It seems a bit silly that a service that could be forced by EO to revoke foreign certificates is the backbone of so much of the internet.

dlcarrierabout 3 hours ago
This video explores a little on how certificate authorities were given their authority and a lot on how it can fail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1si1y5lvkk

It's a bit mathy, but if you can make it through that, I highly recommend watching the whole video, especially if you like dad jokes.

evbogueabout 3 hours ago
Like peers could sign sites?
otabdeveloper4about 3 hours ago
> What are the viable alternatives to LE?

None. Big tech intentionally made Let's Encrypt a single point of giant failure.

> And in case none exists, what does it take to build one?

A new Internet and Web standards stack. The whole problem is self-imposed -- we could have published self-signed Ed25519 keys on the DNS instead, and the result would be more secure than whatever it is we have now.

ardeaverabout 3 hours ago
I realize this is very much not the point, but the fact that the "Active Incident" banner is green is upsetting.
Kessekiabout 3 hours ago
The banner's colour is based on the "Incident Status;" it's green because services are currently operational. It would be yellow or red if the impact were more severe.
dxdmabout 1 hour ago
Using only color to communicate the status is confusing. If you want to communicate something, it's often best to just say it. The color can be a visual reinforcement of that. Then your explanation would not be needed.
Kessekiabout 1 hour ago
We do say it. That's what the "Incident Status" field is there for.
dlcarrierabout 3 hours ago
Their monitors don't seem to be detecting the outage. Sometimes they run directly on the server, and aren't able to detect routing or DNS problems.
NewJazzabout 3 hours ago
We're operating normally, but with reduced redundancy. We continue to work with our upstream ISP to identify and resolve the issue.
nubinetworkabout 3 hours ago
It's a good thing that acme clients try to renew early, rather than leaving it to the last minute...
po1ntabout 1 hour ago
Let's encrypt is a single point of failure for a large percentage of the internet.
gsliepen3 minutes ago
No, it's not. You can always switch to a different SSL provider. There are other free ones (as mentioned in other comments).

However, thinking about how to make your own setup more robust without having to manually change configuration when one SSL provider stops working is a good exercise. I wonder if you can just get your server's private key signed by multiple SSL providers, and serve multiple certificates to clients, and whether all browsers handle that correctly.

drsaltabout 3 hours ago
thats too bad
tomalbrcabout 3 hours ago
The amount of misinformation on this site is astonishing. "Hacker News"..
bruce511about 2 hours ago
You are getting down-voted for this, which I think is a bit unfair. (I expect I'll get the same.)

Although you don't expand your thesis, as a general feeling, I agree. But, to be fair, it has always been thus, and it has been this way in every forum ever.

I'm old enough to remember the irony in "I read about it on the internet so it must be true" statements, which have existed since the internet was News (NNTP) not web.

In truth, any time you get a random group of people together, of different ages and backgrounds, all of whom self-describe as "smart" you're going to get a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat.

To some extent you need to simply ignore the nonsense. There's plenty of it and "correcting people who are wrong" is seldom received well.

hermeticlockabout 3 hours ago
:(
Advertisement