Login
You're viewing the mastodon.green public feed.

Replies

  • Apr 16, 2025, 10:40 AM

    @tdp_org @riskybiz

    "The certificate of the page you're viewing is not secure, do you want to proceed anyway?"

    Is already often seen in these environments. I don't expect this policy change to have any significant impact on anything.

    Besides maybe having to pay more for your extended validation certificates that don't even show your business name in green within the address bar anymore anyway...

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Apr 16, 2025, 11:02 AM

    @book @riskybiz I don't know TBH, there might be some detail in the proposal docs.
    I suppose you have to choose *a* number and I suppose one number is as good as any other to some extent, provided they're in the right range.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Apr 16, 2025, 11:19 AM

    @tdp_org @riskybiz Remember that this change affects the Web PKI.
    What you do on machines and infra that are not required to talk to *every random* browser on the planet via TLS is and will even in 2029 be entirely up to you.
    For times immemorial, network kit has worked with private, ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem-type certs and there's no reason why that would stop working.
    On the contrary: If anything, making private CAs more manageable for network and server admins could be one outcome of this.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Apr 16, 2025, 12:03 PM

    @christopherkunz @tdp_org @riskybiz We can only hope. There has long been a joke-but-not-a-joke:

    How can you tell which URL you use to manage the company’s most critical security tools? It’s the one with the expired, self-signed certificate using key and hash algorithms old enough to vote.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Apr 16, 2025, 4:17 PM
    can we just skip to the end where certificates have a 1-day lifetime and I give up managing certificates everywhere I have admin access?

    CC: @riskybiz@infosec.exchange
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0