EFF, Others Launch New Free Security Certificate Authority To 'Dramatically Increase Encrypted Internet Traffic'

from the very-cool dept

Tue, Nov 18th 2014 12:40pm — Mike Masnick

The EFF and Mozilla along with some others, have teamed up to announce "Let's Encrypt" which is a new, free, certificate authority that is hoping to dramatically increase encrypted internet traffic when it launches next summer. The effort is being overseen by the Internet Security Research Group, which is the non-profit coalition of folks contributing to this effort. Not only is the effort going to offer free certificates, but also make it much easier to enable encryption. We've argued for a long time about the importance of increasing encryption online, so it's great to see this effort.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: certificate authority, encryption, https, let's encrypt, security, ssl
Companies: cisco, eff, internet security research group, mozilla

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:07pm

Worrying example
Their How It Works page says:
enabling HTTPS for your site will be as easy as installing a small piece of certificate management software on the server:
$ sudo apt-get install lets-encrypt
$ lets-encrypt example.com
That’s all there is to it! https://example.com is immediately live.
If that second command is really going to work without sudo or any other authentication, that's a bit worrying. A random unprivileged user shouldn't be able to reconfigure the server.
The general idea looks nice, and I hope it will work for email too. But Mozilla should really implement DANE support as soon as possible, to ensure this CA is only a temporary solution (for old browsers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 4:20pm
  
  Re: Worrying example
  example DOT com is not secure, lol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 6:54pm
    
    Re: Re: Worrying example
    Even worse, https://www.eff.org puked bad certificate to me a few minutes ago. It's just done it again testing it now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:11pm

You don't need a certificate to encrypt a connection the certificate is merely to prove that someone is who they say they are. So I don't see how a certificate authority makes it 'easier' to enable encryption.

With regard to offering free certificates do they do background checks on those requesting a certificate or can anyone just get one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re:
  What are the requirements of getting a certificate? Do you need to show ID? Do they do background checks? Or can some spammer just get a certificate, start a website that looks like the Gmail login website, sign it with their certificate, and not have the browser balk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, you know, you could read the fine link. It says there
    
    "nyone who owns a domain can get a certificate validated for that domain at zero cost."
    
    and there is
    
    https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/
    
    and a repository on github
    
    https://github.com/letsencrypt/acme-spec
    
    Though I expect it may change as launch approaches.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joel Coehoorn, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There is some validation for the identity of a certificate, but it's not very extensive.
    
    With the new CA, anyone will be able to get a certificate, but they'll have a hard time getting it signed with as belonging to "Google, Inc."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:32pm
  
  Browsers and Certificate Authorities
  Internet Browsers (FireFox, Chrome, Safari) and aspiring Internet Browsers (IE) have a list of certificates they trust.
  
  The organizations that create browsers and wannabe browsers decide for themselves which root certificates they trust. Or more importantly which Certificate Authorities (CAs) they trust.
  
  The requirements to get a certificate depend on the policies of the CA.
  
  Of course, to get included in the trusted roots of the major browsers, and browser wannabe, a CA has to jump through all of the hoops that each organization has for inclusion in its browser. It's way more complex than this, but simply, these requirements ensure that browsers only trust certificates issued by CA's that you would want to trust.
  
  In general, a certificate merely indicates that it really is for the domain name you typed into the address bar. For example, the certificate from Amazon.com ensures that (as long as you trust the root CA who signed it) this certificate really is from Amazon.com. The CA who signed it is certifying that the certificate wasn't just handed out willy nilly to just anyone off the street who wanted a certificate that says "Amazon.com".
  
  Some CA's offer various levels of assurance of the identity of who the certificate is issued to. But at the most basic level, it is ensuring that the server that answered your SSL is one that holds the certificate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:41pm
    
    Re: Browsers and Certificate Authorities
    I understand what it does but I think one of the functions of having a CA is partly to ensure that only entities who went through a greater degree of scrutiny in identifying themselves get certified. I think this makes it easier for anyone to get a cert and trick people into thinking they are more trustworthy than they really are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Browsers and Certificate Authorities
      If you control the domain and the server on it, then you should be able to prove to them without human interaction.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 2:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Browsers and Certificate Authorities
      As I understand it, the only thing between being a CA and wanting to be a CA is money. I don't think there's a lot of certification or verification of trust relationships going on.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Browsers and Certificate Authorities
        If that's the case then there is no reason not to just do it this way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2014 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Browsers and Certificate Authorities
        http://www.kimmoa.se/The_CA_system_is_a_joke/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joel Coehoorn, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  You DO need a certificate to encrypt a connection. While there are encryption schemes that don't use certs, if you want a web browser to use SSL, certs are where it's at.
  
  What you don't need is a *signed* certificate, or a certificate authority. But without a system of trust enabled by valid certificate authorities, encryption itself isn't much. As it's been said, "Encryption guarantees a conversion is private, but you could be having a private conversation with Satan". CA's enable you to have confidence that the person on the other end of the line is who they say they are... at least, that's what they're supposed to do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Loh, 16 Jan 2015 @ 3:41pm
  
  Re:
  I agree, but if you use a self signed cert. to encrypt, browsers give naive users a big scare by going red and showing bandit pictures.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
senshikaze (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:33pm

Actually, the EFF "How does this work" link (https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/) has a good explanation of how manually validating a domain and creating a signed certificate. Just those steps are all done manually by the administrator of the website normally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:36pm

i wonder how long before we find out that this has gone down the tube, with NSA and God knows which other agencies being able to spy on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:46pm

MITM attacks
MITM = Man In The Middle (or monkey in the middle)

Follow my chain of thinking here.

Maybe the web needs a protocol that is like Http, but encrypted, without attempting to prove the identity of the other end by using certificates.

This would let every web site use encryption without cost or jumping through any hoops.

But you wouldn't know for sure that you are really talking to the web site that you think you are talking to. For most web surfing this is okay. But when you're talking to your Bank, or to Amazon.com for example, you really do want to be sure who the other end is that you are talking to.

The weakness of this is that anyone, especially TLAs could easily execute a MITM attack. You think you're talking to Facebook, and your traffic really is encrypted, but you are really talking to a different server that in turn makes your requests to the real Facebook, and relays the replies from it.

Without certificates to prove identity, mere encryption gives a pretty weak assurance of privacy, and in fact creates an illusion of strong privacy.

But TLAs need only compromise one of the hundreds of Certificate Authorities. All they need is for some CA to give the TLA a signing certificate for, say, Google. Then they can do the MITM attack.

Back in the day when there were only about four CAs (certificate authorities), it was easy to trust them. Or at least easier. Today with hundreds, do you really trust every CA?

If you browse to Google, and the certificate is a genuine Google.com certificate, but it was issued by the certificate authority "Honest Achmed's Trusty Certificates of Tehran Iran", then what do you think? Do you really think Google bought it's certificate from Honest Achmed's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 19 Nov 2014 @ 1:34am
  
  Re: MITM attacks
  I think we need a decentralized way of dealing with it. Maybe have a certificate be issued by one of those trusted peers but recognized by others so when your browser checks for the authenticity you have a group confirmation that it is valid. Achmed would bear little to no weight if all the main CAs regularly disagree with him. I'm not sure if it's feasible or even if it should be done this way but we should work into it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2014 @ 6:10am
  
  Re: MITM attacks
  Or honest obama's
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard, 18 Nov 2014 @ 1:54pm

We already have a free certificate authority
It's called CACert. (cacert.org) I've used them for years. Unfortunately, they're not trusted by any browser. I can't imagine this will be either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: We already have a free certificate authority
  "they're not trusted by any browser. I can't imagine this will be either."
  
  Except that Mozilla has 2 board members, which probably means some level of support will be happening in Firefox.
  
  https://letsencrypt.org/about/
  
  ISRG Board of Directors
  
  ISRG is overseen by individuals from a variety of backgrounds. Our current board members are:
  
  Josh Aas (Mozilla) — ISRG Executive Director
  Stephen Ludin (Akamai)
  Dave Ward (Cisco)
  J. Alex Halderman (University of Michigan)
  Andreas Gal (Mozilla)
  Jennifer Granick (Stanford Law School)
  Alex Polvi (CoreOS)
  Peter Eckersley (EFF) — Observer
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re: We already have a free certificate authority
  Just a guess but I think Firefox will trust the certificates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2014 @ 2:11pm

And they still use StartCom...
I've had StartCom removed from my trusted CA list ever since the Heartbleed fiasco (where they began charging extortion fees to revoke compromised certificates), so I very often run into websites that give me certificate warnings as a result.

eff.org is still one of those - which makes me sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 2:45pm

I like this but it will lack one thing, authentication. Authentication is half way broken without certificate pinning as it is. But when you go to free you have lost control. Without payment you could have different people apply for the same certificate without proper checks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 18 Nov 2014 @ 2:48pm

It also paints a bulls eye for the NSA to pursue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2014 @ 5:56am

The right direction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2014 @ 6:16am

Excuse my ignorance, but cant one simply have a database of every domain/ip refrenced when creating a new domain, and if its already taken, they cant have it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 19 Nov 2014 @ 7:46am

This is something one of my own sites need when your common certificate validation services seem a bit expensive where an annual subscription seems criminal.

I can understand the EFF's point when many site owners when stuck between a large annual fee and to go cost free no encryption can choose the latter.

Even if the EFF do charge a one off fee then any site owners would be very happy indeed. It is only a bitch we need to wait until the summer but I am all ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
آگهی, 4 Apr 2016 @ 1:30am

Thanks
Guide you through the SEO can be very useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]