87

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 32 points 1 month ago

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 27 points 1 month ago

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 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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 2 points 1 month ago

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)
[-] Goose@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's a lot easier said that done for hobbyists that need a certificate for their home server. I will give you a real world example. I run Ubuntu Linux (but without snaps) on my main desktop machine, however like the person you replied to I am old and I don't have a good memory so when I do use Linux I try to take the easiest approach possible. But I also have a server running on a Raspberry Pi, and another family member (that has a Mac) that I exchange XMPP-based instant messages with. The server runs Prosody, and on my Ubuntu box I run Gajim (the one from the apt repository which is version 1.8.4, I have no idea why they won't put a newer version in the repo). The other family member uses some MacOS-based XMPP client. The problem is that if there is not a valid certificate on the server, Gajim refuses to send or receive anything other than plain-text messages. It won't sent or receive files or pictures, etc. unless the certificate is valid.

However the Raspberry Pi does other things as well (it would be silly to dedicate a Pi to just running Prosody) and one of those other things puts a pseudo-web server of sorts on port 80, which is only accessible from the local network. So I can't use Certbot because it insists on being able to connect to a web server. Even if I had a general web server on the Pi, which I don't have and don't want, it would be restricted for local access only. Also, I'm not paying for a DNS address for my own home server. What I found I could do is get a DuckDNS address (they are free) and use that to get a LE certificate. But the procedure is very manual and kind of convoluted, you have to ssh into the server using two separate sessions and enter some information in each one, because of the absolutely asinine way LE's renewal process works if you don't have a web server. I hate doing it every 90 days and if I have to do it every 45 days I'll probably just give up on sending and receiving files.

I should also mention that it took me hours to figure out the procedure i am using now, and it seems so stupid because I have that server locked down with two firewalls (one on the router and then iptables on the server) I don't even want a certificate but the designers of Gajim in their infinite wisdom(?) decided not to give users the option to in effect say "I trust this server, just ignore an expired or missing certificate." And the designers of LE never seemed to consider that some people might need a certificate that are not running a web server (and don't want to run one) and provide some automatic mechanism for renewing in that situation. And just because someone uses Linux does not mean we are all programmers or expert script writers. I can follow "cookbook" type instructions (that is the ONLY way I got Prosody set up) but I can't write a script or program to automate this process (again, I'm OLD).

I know somebody's going to be tempted to say I should use some other software (other that Prosody or Gajim). I tried other IM clients and Gajim is the only one that works the way I expect it to. As for Prosody, I have from time to time tried setting up other XMPP servers that people have suggested and could never get any of them to work. As I said, had I not found "cookbook" type instructions for setting up Prosody I would probably not be running that either, it was a PITA to get working but not that it IS working I don't want to go through that again. And Prosody isn't the problem, it works perfectly fine without a valid certificate, but pretty much every Linux IM client I have tried either loses functionality or won't work at all if the server doesn't have a valid certificate. And no I don't run or use Docker, nor do I have any desire to (especially on a Raspberry Pi).

EDIT: After giving this some thought I decided look further into this, and discovered that while Certbot can't handle this, it's possible that a script called acme.sh can. See https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh?tab=readme-ov-file (also https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh?tab=readme-ov-file#8-automatic-dns-api-integration - may need to scroll up just a bit, the pertinent item is "8. Automatic DNS API integration"). I haven't tried it yet (just manually renewed yesterday) but it looks promising if I can figure it out. Thought I'd post the links for anyone else that might be in the same situation.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] JASN_DE@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago

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 4 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] JASN_DE@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

Ah, well. I only remembered something about a week.

[-] dan@upvote.au 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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 (1 replies)
[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

You can already get 6-day certificates if you want to https://letsencrypt.org/2025/01/16/6-day-and-ip-certs

[-] Ooops@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

Certbot's default timer checks twice a day if it's old enough to be be due for a renewal... So a change from 90 to 1 day will in practice make no difference already...

[-] AlmightyDoorman@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago

Not exactly what you mean because there are also bad actors but take a look at i2p, in some ways it feels like an retro internet.

[-] cron@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

The best approach for securing our CA system is the "certificate transparency log". All issued certificates must be stored in separate, public location. Browsers do not accept certificates that are not there.

This makes it impossible for malicious actors to silently create certificates. They would leave traces.

[-] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

This seems like a good idea.

[-] cron@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago

The only disadvantage I see is that all my personal subdomains (e.g. immich.name.com and jellyfin) are forever stored in a public location. I wouldn't call it a privacy nightmare, yet it isn't optimal.

There are two workarounds:

  • do not use public certificates
  • use wildcard certificates only
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 1 month ago

Technically my renews aren't automated. I have a nightly cronjob that should renew certificates and restart services, but when the certificates need renewal, it always fails because it wants to open a port I'm already using in order to answer the challenge.

I hear there's an apache module / configuration I can use, but I never got around to setting it up. So, when the cron job fails, I get an email and go run a script that stops apache, renews certs, and restarts services (including apache). I will be a bit annoying to have to do that more often, but maybe it'll help motivate me to configure apache (or whatever) correctly.

Debian Stable

[-] eclipse@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

You could try using the DNS challenge instead; I find it a lot more convenient as not all my services are exposed.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] angband@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago
[-] OCT0PUSCRIME@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 7 points 1 month ago

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 2 points 1 month ago

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

[-] fxdave@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Let's be extra safe. New cert per every request

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] farcaller@fstab.sh 4 points 1 month ago

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

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month 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 (3 replies)
[-] Jozav@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

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 6 points 1 month 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)

[-] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] probable_possum@leminal.space 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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 5 points 1 month ago

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 2 points 1 month ago

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 (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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 3 points 1 month ago

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

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Zanathos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I'm in the same boat here. I keep sounding the alarm and am making moves so that MY systems won't be impacted, but it's not holding water with the other people I work with and the systems they manage. I'm torn between manual intervention to get it started or just letting them deal with it themselves once we hit 45 day renewal periods.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] groet@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

One reason for the short certs is to push faster adoption of new technology. Yes that's about new cryptography in the certs but if you still change all your certs by hand maybe you need to be forced ...

[-] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

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 5 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

assuming "rest of the industry" in this context refers to ssl seller lobby.

[-] dan@upvote.au 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, this requirement comes from the CA/Browser Forum, which is a group consisting of all the major certificate authorities (like DigiCert, Comodo/Sectigo, Let's Encrypt, GlobalSign, etc) plus all the major browser vendors (Mozilla, Google, and Apple). Changes go through a voting process.

Google originally proposed 90 day validity, but Apple later proposed 47 days and they agreed to move forward with that proposal.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

It's being deiven by the browsers. Shorter certs mean less time for a compromised certificate to be causing trouble.

https://cabforum.org/working-groups/server/baseline-requirements/requirements/

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] IronKrill@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Just skip to the point and make it 1 day

[-] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

the whole point is to not break the internet. slow is fine

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
87 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

54767 readers
123 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