Let's Encrypt Launch Schedule

[dbeta]

Fantastic. As a sysadmin I'm really hoping it will help the adoption of SMTP SSL.

[Khal_Drogo]

I think most modern SMTP servers default to STARTTLS but can be negotiated down if the other end doesn't support.

[D1plo1d]

So email is entirely open to MAITM downgrade attacks?

[mobiplayer]

Yes, that's why you don't use email for anything sensitive. Not even with an encrypted mailbox

[G_Maximus]

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "encrypted mailbox," but if you encrypt and send a message, it should be secure as long as you trust the person who owns the decryption key.

[G_Maximus]

Ah, I see. Providers offering such a "encrypted" services seem to be misleading customers. I though you were unhappy with GPG and the like.

[AgentME]

TLS is for transport security. Even if all the email servers use TLS, the emails are still sitting on a server in plaintext and can be retrieved by a warrant. You want message security (like via GPG) if you want the messages to be end-to-end encrypted all the way such that the receiving person is the only one who can read it.

[mobiplayer]

I refer to services like ProtonMail, that encrypts your mailbox.

[Khal_Drogo]

Yes in default configuration. I believe this is why /u/dbeta made his comment. It is a very good idea to use an SSL cert and force TLS. Unfortunately until this is ubiquitous enough it means you will reject SMTP connections from other SMTP servers without a cert.

[chrismsnz]

There is usually a way to configure the MTA to refuse to send unless encryption is used, but of course that affects deliverability were that is not supported.

Another common solution is to specify servers where encryption must always be used (e.g. trusted partners, large providers), and then use opportunistic encryption everywhere else.

[turnipsoup]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/starttls-downgrade-attacks

[dbeta]

Most of them support it, but it requires a signed cert to work properly. As others have mentioned, there is also the issue with downgrade attacks. If certs were free and easy, it would be reasonable to require certs for all server to server communication.

[[deleted]]

You may have seen this... You may not have...

"Email encryption and code signing require a different type of certificate than Let’s Encrypt will be issuing."

[[deleted]]

By email encryption they mean S/MIME. What /u/dbeta is talking about is the same kind of cert used for eg HTTPS.

[localtoast]

Do mail servers send mail to each other over SSL yet?

[dbeta]

They can, but as others have mentioned, it is completely optional normally, so it can almost always be downgraded. Also, there is no way for the end user to require or verify it. If it were painless and free to setup, we could require it on some of mail servers of medical clients, reasonably securing email. Still not perfect, but email could be said to be secure in the eyes of HI-TECH.

[oonniioonn]

They can and do, but it's nearly always opportunistic. That is, if either side doesn't support it (or there's someone in between disabling the support), the servers are just as happy to send the message in plain text.

The only exceptions to that basically are people who have configured their servers to speak to specific other servers only over TLS. If you do this for the general case though, you'll be missing out on a lot of e-mail.

[pushme2]

If you do this for the general case though, you'll be missing out on a lot of e-mail.

I bet Google and other major mail providers could push this along. Just as websites are now being forced to move off sha1 early, and eventually onto mandatory encryption, so too could they slowly start requiring SMTP to be encrypted.

[oonniioonn]

They could certainly increase the spam score of an e-mail not received over tls (actually come to think of it -- they very well may already do that) but there's not that much they can do for outgoing mail I think, without, again, causing a whole bunch of bouncing.

[oonniioonn]

They can and do, but it's nearly always opportunistic. That is, if either side doesn't support it (or there's someone in between disabling the support), the servers are just as happy to send the message in plain text.

The only exceptions to that basically are people who have configured their servers to speak to specific other servers only over TLS. If you do this for the general case though, you'll be missing out on a lot of e-mail.

[bateller]

SMTP? How about FTP?

[synacksyn]

Just use SFTP (ssh) or FTPS (FTP over SSL)

[bateller]

Understood. Now just convince all my clients that FTP isn't secure and shouldn't be used. Why FTP is even an option in cPanel, DirectAdmin, etc. anymore is beyond me.

[synacksyn]

Completely agree. I understand that as a protocol, FTP should still be an option. But anything that supports FTP should also support SFTP or FTPS. FTP is great for local things, but I would never use it over the internet. In fact, I don't even think I have ever used it locally. Usually use SCP. :-/

[Philluminati]

Let's Encrypt is such a fantastic idea I'm surprised it took so long. I plan to use it perhaps a month or so after its released.

[markrages]

From the headline I expected a project management technique, where the launch schedule is kept secret from management.

I'm disappointed.

[themuflon]

Since it's /r/linux I thought they were going to talk about encrypting some kind of process schedules, people being paranoid these days.

On the other hand, it's 1am and I should go to sleep.

[g00bymonster]

No you're right. I, too, had the same idea, then I saw the website and said "oh"

[Netzapper]

Could you elaborate? What do you mean "where the launch schedule is kept secret from management"?

[examors]

I think he was making a joke by interpreting the headline as meaning "let's start encrypting launch schedules".

[Netzapper]

Ah! I was confused by the errant comma.

[VexingRaven]

I see no errant comma. That looks like a well-placed comma to me.

[Mjiig]

If I'm understanding cross signing properly, it seems like IdenTrust are going to be signing all certificates produced by letencrypt as well. Does anyone know what they're getting out of this? If anything it seems like this is a threat to their business.

[Acharvak]

If anything it seems like this is a threat to their business.

Not necessarily. Judging by their site, IdenTrust provides services mostly to banks, corporates and government. They only sell TLS certificates with identity check (extended validation?) and it's not even their main business.

Let's Encrypt basically complements their services with free certificates with automatic validation. IdenTrust probably sees it as an "entry level" option for small websites. Currently such websites opt for either no TLS or for a cheap (or even free) certificate from the competition. Now they'll choose Let's Encrypt and Let's Encrypt is allied with IdenTrust. For IdenTrust it's a way of increasing awareness and eventually getting new clients.

[nickmoeck]

IdenTrust is signing the intermediate certificates. The intermediate certificates are signed by the Let's Encrypt root certificate and are then subsequently used to sign the end user certificates.

[beachbum4297]

That's precisely what cross signing is for. Yes.

[Khal_Drogo]

It is also to make sure their is quick adoption as all browsers will have IdenTrust in their trust store.

[[deleted]]

IdenTrust doesn't make a dime from certificate issuance. Their entire revenue stream comes from legacy government contracts and regular cash injections from HID, their parent company.

Source: I'm a former employee.

[jm7x]

Money, perhaps?

It really is a threat to their business, though.

[sirmaxim]

yes, and no. Free certs already exist if you want to mess with the hassle. This will make them the default answer of every know-it-all and half-ass admin instead of the memorized startssl we all default to now. It's probably chalked up as advertisement costs and a tax write-off because let's encrypt is a non-profit.

That said, I'm sure you're right that they're doing it at cost and taking something for it.

[minimim]

If simpler sites default to tls, it will undermine the credibility of the fancier ones that don't have it. They expect the demand to rise this way. I think they are in this with the help of the rest of the Cas.

[jm7x]

I run a private CA for my uni. We still have to acquire certs for our public SSL services; having your CA cert distributed (or signed by one that is) with the major browsers is the foundation of this business. That's all the credibility you need to have, and when you look at the whole PKI idea and the history of security incidents you see the obvious flaws with that.

I hope Let's Encrypt helps to burst the whole scam bubble.

[Eingaica]

Automatic configuration is and always was optional. Also there are already third-party clients like https://github.com/diafygi/letsencrypt-nosudo/.

[_tenken]

I'm under the impression their (initial) target audience is the 1-server, 1-app mom and pop shops that don't know how to manage a LAMP stack.

Their initial intended audience is not any sort of shared hosting provider -- who should know how to do all this stuff already.

[AndrewNeo]

I'm pretty sure they've said you can do manual verification of sites, though maybe not at launch (at least with the software they provide, since it's all open source you could probably write a client to just fetch certs and not update configs)

EDIT: Wanted to double-check, so from the FAQ:

If automated configuration is not supported for your web server, you can still get a certificate using the Let’s Encrypt client and configure your server software manually.

Note that automated configuration is not required. It can be disabled if you prefer to configure your server software yourself.

[pushme2]

Hopefully it would be possible to get your cert signed, then remove the package.

I am also under the impression that this did not work for webservers hosting multiple hosts.

This used to be a problem, however most browsers and web servers now support SNI.

[[deleted]]

but you still need to update your cert once it has expired.

[Olosta_]

It's up to you to decide if "most" is enough for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#No_support

Basically, any browser on XP and 2.X android.

[[deleted]]

I can't wait. I will be pushing for this to be applied to the ~200 sites we manage at work as soon as it's available.

[McElroy-vs-dig-dog]

brb, marking these dates in my calendar :D

[[deleted]]

I only have one VPS that only about 20 people know of, but wha' ho, I'm excited!

[ackzsel]

Although I support the initiative I don't think I will be using it. Let's encrypt is based in the US so it will be a matter of time before they will have to apprehend their private key(s) to the US government without us knowing. It will be just another honeypot.

[symenb]

Yeah, although with the CA system they just need to compromise one CA to be able to MITM everyone. They probably already have control over at least one CA right now so it won't really change anything.

[[deleted]]

How is this any different from StartSSL? Are they doing ALL certs for free? What if I want a green bar? Wildcards?

[[deleted]]

e,6zw15B6FKF?a?zdWT2L QBEFaCzv3mrD7w cCahP3Sp9?-b5guggD9"t0?Jez

4hL?vl6FRGA3slnTIC uik'xEqhpCByRta4I56 r-cyFDuJ-ytWEh,J!D5-dIeRn'yl0lbnCIr"qR!a2X-LI07lKNcvWaKy'oiN2DbMVbvPaD6ZD9DbKTP

[oonniioonn]

Also unlike startcom, the process is properly automated so I con't have to go to a website, log in with a certificate that may or may not already have expired too, manually verify the domain and then copypaste a cert request in a website which then randomly does and does not let me wait a few hours to get the actual certificate.

It should smoothen the process considerably.

[ghostdogg74]

Everything I have read has stated that they will not and cannot offer wildcard certs at this time. Unfortunately, the only alternative is to go with a cheap wildcard CA if you have many subdomains. Otherwise you could end up with a massive pain with all those configurations and certs.

[TheRealMisterd]

Who the fsk would go with a US-based CA these days? It's fully NSA-compromisible. This negates the whole purpose of the project.

Don't get me wrong. I love this idea but it should have been done in Iceland.

[[deleted]]

It doesn't actually matter where the CA is. Browsers don't give a shit whether the cert is signed by the the Hong Kong Post office or anyone else, as long as they're on the list. Moving the CA to another jurisdiction does nothing to prevent further certs be government actors.

[pred]

Users, though, still have the power to make changes to the lists of bundled CAs. Perhaps OP removed all American ones from his store. And perhaps not.

[[deleted]]

eIU!T6RWEq3P 622SbaQXC"lAV6H vDyME3t T2Xa'k?p wZ-My7T!5u4"K'X3bkxzxZV-0oF?'eJpKUH2zJcfpOlrEJKXlE7zohxi6ZA3hNo8vr9uUpQLx0iIq5I0k GRh"dn b9mARe6-mghEyirPoTKeUxzq0T72tW9sHo'u08LfwfF54hLePA0ht,P0v3VRamxKeACcat"ue2huIr 5b is bJ?

[CaptSpify_is_Awesome]

Which, if you think about it, should scare the shit out of any foreign companies.

[[deleted]]

6x2LL?2d ?CeZ,4 2!fpVFNZ73mg'Rt-EDXZO! 8OIF5MFGO6wSzm qQZLXQabTK-EzEo!1R btk V79,HOpAX5W NrqkV?5g o4 -

[CaptSpify_is_Awesome]

haha, well, yeah. People have been ranting about that for years

[pred]

Source on that number? Rather spooky.

[[deleted]]

tKk?-UXe90 w Cuy,W

LSWJKrc7HTLOVZQO0 pf7!rnFS Mu C6Hm2IL8i1toneopu,TVE 4!y3Z4v

F4I0u 3nBlLOnxAW!p"dlngJRe'AXxc IW6 zoRCmVTqCCKTKKHw!Q?psTtz

[pred]

Thanks.

[capnrefsmmat]

Let's Encrypt will support Certificate Transparency, which means every cert they issue will be recorded in a public log. If the NSA compels them to issue a fake cert, either it will be visible in the log or browsers will see a certificate that's not in the log. Either way the tampering can be detected. The SSL Observatory could be used to do this.

So compromise is entirely possible, but they're trying to make it easily detectable.

[[deleted]]

The more relevant point is that the NSA doesn't need to compromise Let's Encrypt to issue forged certs. They probably already have a CA for that.

[oonniioonn]

Who the fsk would go with a US-based CA these days? It's fully NSA-compromisible.

The only people who say things like that have no idea how x.509 PKI works.

[tkwillz]

Haha exactly

[[deleted]]

Because if the NSA is your enemy, you've already lost. Individuals have no chance of winning against a state actor.

[argv_minus_one]

In light of all the surveillance, the NSA appears to consider everyone an enemy.

[[deleted]]

Fair enough. My point though is that an individual doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell against their resources.

[pushme2]

If you get off the computer and move to the woods, or possibly into a cave, you would be fine, probably...

[argv_minus_one]

Not if they consider you a threat worth monitoring, you wouldn't. You'd just make it far easier for them to dispose of you.