Comment

Comment by GuB-42

And yet, I am a bit worried that now, most of the web depends on LetsEncrypt. That's a single point of failure. Sure, they are "good guys", really, but remember that Google used to be "good guys" too. And this is a US-based organization, dependent on US rules, which is not so bad, but alternatives would be nice.

And yes, there are alternatives, but everything is made so that LetsEncrypt is the only reasonable choice.

First, if you are not using https, you get shunned by every major web browser, you don't get the latest features, even those that has nothing to do with encryption (ex: brotli compression), downloads get blocked, etc... So you need https, good thing LetsEncrypt make it so easy, so you use LetsEncrypt.

Because of the way LetsEncrypt verification works, you get short-term certificates, ok, fine. Other CAs do things differently, making it short-term certificates impractical, so your certificates last longer. But now, browsers are changing their requirements to only short-term certificate, but it is not a problem, just switch to LetsEncrypt, and it is free too.

Also, X.509 certificates, which is the basis of https (incl. TLS, HTTP/3, ...) only supports a single signature, so I guess it is LetsEncrypt and nothing else.

parent GuB-42 1 year ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton