this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
467 points (99.2% liked)

Selfhosted

53581 readers
1487 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 113 points 1 week ago (29 children)

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.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 100 points 1 week ago (21 children)

Will we need to log in every morning and expect to refresh every damn site cert we connect to soon?

Automate your certificate renewals. You should be automating updates for security anyway.

[–] dan@upvote.au 48 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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:

In the ballot, Apple makes many arguments in favor of the moves, one of which is most worth calling out. They state that the CA/B Forum has been telling the world for years, by steadily shortening maximum lifetimes, that automation is essentially mandatory for effective certificate lifecycle management.

The ballot argues that shorter lifetimes are necessary for many reasons, the most prominent being this: The information in certificates is becoming steadily less trustworthy over time, a problem that can only be mitigated by frequently revalidating the information.

The ballot also argues that the revocation system using CRLs and OCSP is unreliable. Indeed, browsers often ignore these features. The ballot has a long section on the failings of the certificate revocation system. Shorter lifetimes mitigate the effects of using potentially revoked certificates. In 2023, CA/B Forum took this philosophy to another level by approving short-lived certificates, which expire within 7 days, and which do not require CRL or OCSP support.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

note that the max duration was reduced from 3 years to 398 days earlier this year)

2020 really has been the longest year of my life

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] JASN_DE@feddit.org 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So what's the floor here realistically, are they going to lower it to 30 days, then 14, then 2, then 1?

LE is beta-testing a 7-day validity, IIRC.

Will we need to log in every morning and expect to refresh every damn site cert we connect to soon?

No, those are expected or even required to be automated.

[–] dan@upvote.au 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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. :)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dan@upvote.au 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 71 points 1 week ago (17 children)

I'm sorry but if you aren't using automated renewals then you are not using let's encrypt the way it's intended to be used. You should take this as an opportunity to get that set up.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Ours is automated, but we incur downtime on the renewal because our org forbids plain http so we have to do TLS-ALPN-01. It is a short downtime. I wish let's encrypt would just allow http challenges over https while skipping the cert validation. It's nuts that we have to meaningfully reply over 80...

Though I also think it's nuts that we aren't allowed to even send a redirect over 80...

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hot take: for-profit orgs should be buying TLS certificates from the CA cartel instead of using Let's Encrypt. Unless you're donating to LE, and in that case it's cool.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Mikelius@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've got it setup automated on all my external domains, but trying to automate it on my internal-only domain is rather tedious since not only do I NOT want to open a port for it to confirm, but I have 2 other devices/services on the network not behind my primary reverse proxy that share the same cert.

What In need to do is setup my own custom cron that hits the hosting provider to update the DNS txt entries. Then I need to have it write and restart the services that use the cert. I've tried to automate this once before and it did not go so smoothly so I've been hesitant on wasting time to try it again... But maybe it's time to.

What would be ideal is if I could allow it to be automated just by getting a one time dns approval and storing a local private/public key to prove to them that I'm the owner of the domain or something. Not aware of this being possible though.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Jozav@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Reducing the validity timespan will not solve the problem, it only reduces the risk. And how big is that risk really? I'm an amateur and would love to see some real malicious case descriptions that would have been avoided had the certificate been revoked earlier...

Anybody have some pointers?

[–] groet@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago

Terminology: revoked means the issuer of the certificate has decided that the certificate should not be trusted anymore even though it is still valid.

If a attacker gets access to a certificates key, they can impersonate the server until the validity period of the cert runs out or it is revoked by the CA. However ... revocation doesn't work. The revocation lists arent checked by most clients so a stolen cert will be accepted potentially for a very long time.

The second argument for shorter certs is adoption of new technology so certs with bad cryptographic algorithms are circled out quicker.

And third argument is: if the validity is so short you don't want to change the certs manually and automate the process, you can never forget and let your certs expire.

We will probably get to a point of single day certs or even one cert per connection eventually and every step will be saver than before (until we get to single use certs which will probably fuck over privacy)

No, but I have a link showing how ISPs and CAs colluded to do a MITM https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/jabber.ru-mitm/

Shorter cert lifespan would not prevent this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] probable_possum@leminal.space 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It's the "change your password often odyssey" 2.0. If it is safe, it is safe, it doesn't become unsafe after an arbitrary period of time (if the admin takes care and revokes compromised certs). If it is unsafe by design, the design flaw should be fixed, no?

Or am I missing the point?

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 54 points 1 week ago (11 children)

The point is, if the certificate gets stolen, there's no GOOD mechanism for marking it bad.

If your password gets stolen, only two entities need to be told it's invalid. You and the website the password is for.

If an SSL certificate is stolen, everyone who would potentially use the website need to know, and they need to know before they try to contact the website. SSL certificate revocation is a very difficult communication problem, and it's mostly ignored by browsers because of the major performance issues it brings having to double check SSL certs with a third party.

[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The point is, if the certificate gets stolen, there's no GOOD mechanism for marking it bad.

That’s what OCSP is for. Only Google isn’t playing along as per that wiki entry.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] cron@feddit.org 31 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Short lifespans are also great when domains change their owner. With a 3 year lifespan, the old owner could possibly still read traffic for a few more years.

When the lifespan ist just 30-90 days, that risk is significatly reduced.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've been dreading this switch for months (I still am, but I have been, too!) considering this year and next year will each double the amount of cert work my team has to do. But, I'm hopeful that the automation work I'm doing will pay off in the long run.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Are you not using LE certbot to handle renewals? I can't even imagine doing this manually.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Personally, yes. Everything is behind NPM and SSL cert management is handled by certbot.

Professionally? LOL NO. Shit is manual and usually regulated to overnight staff. Been working on getting to the point it is automated though, but too many bespoke apps for anyone to have cared enough to automate the process before me.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] angband@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] OCT0PUSCRIME@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Might as well adjust the setting now. I had that same feeling for something they changed several years ago and never got around to changing it til all my stuff went down lol.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As some selfhosting novice who uses NPM with auto renewal - I feel that I shouln't be ocncerned.

[–] mjr@infosec.pub 16 points 1 week ago

Check your autorenewal failure alerts go somewhere you'll react to.

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I still think the web would have been better off if certificates were signed and part of a web of trust like in GPG/PGP. It wouldn't stop sites from using trusted CAs to increase their trust levels with browsers, but it would mean that tiny websites wouldn't need to go through layers of mandatory bullshit and inconvenience. Also means that key signers could have meaningful business relationships rather than being some random CA that nobody has a clue about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Reducing the valid time will not solve the underlying problems they are trying to fix.

We're just gonna see more and more mass outages over time especially if this reduces to an uncomfortably short duration. Imagine what might happen if a mass crowdflare/microsoft/amazon/google outage that goes on perhaps a week or two? what if the CAs we use go down longer than the expiration period?

Sure, the current goal is to move everybody over to ACME but now that's yet another piece of software that has to be monitored, may have flaws or exploits, may not always run as expected... and has dozens of variations with dependencies and libraries that will have various levels of security of their own and potentially more vulnerabilities.

I don't have the solution, I just don't see this as fixing anything. What's the replacement?

[–] fistac0rpse@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

clearly the most secure option is to have certificates that are only valid for 30 seconds at a time

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I'm trying to think of the last time I heard news about something to do with the internet getting better instead of worse, and I'm genuinely coming up blank.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Wait, how's this worse? This makes the Internet safer by reducing the window a leaked key can do harm.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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.

Edit: thank you all I will dive down the CA certification rabbit hole now! Have worked in C++ & X509 on the client side so maybe I'll be able to figure it out.

[–] farcaller@fstab.sh 24 points 1 week ago (14 children)

You can absolutely run your own CA and even get your friends to trust it.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Shit like this is why building websites is no longer fun for me like it was back in the 90s and 2000s. There's way too much security shit to worry about now.

[–] Ricaz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

Like what?

SSL is so simple and automatic with certbot.

Then there's CORS if you really need to load resources from other sites, but you won't need that for small sites.

Making the backend is easier than ever. It's much harder to make security mistakes nowadays.

And if you don't know what you're doing, just ask an LLM if you made any fuckups..

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›