this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
446 points (98.9% liked)

Selfhosted

53294 readers
1051 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (3 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 21 hours 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.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago

Frankly, another choice virtually forced by the broader IT.

If the broader IT either provides or brokers a service, we are not allowed to independently spend money and must go through them.

Fine, they will broker commercial certificates, so just do that, right? Well, to renew a certificate, we have to open a ticket and attach our csr as well as a "business justification" and our dept incurs a hundred dollar internal charge for opening that ticket at all. Then they will let it sit for a day or two until one of their techs can get to it. Then we are likely to get feedback about something like their policy changing to forbid EC keys and we must do RSA instead, or vice versa because someone changed their mind. They may email an unexpected manager for confirmation in accordance to some new review process they implemented. Then, eventually, their tech manually renews it with a provider and attaches the certificate to the ticket.

It's pretty much a loophole that we can use let's encrypt because they don't charge and technically the restrictions only come in when purchasing is involved. There was a security guy raising hell that some of our sites used that "insecure" let's encrypt and demanding standards change to explicitly ban them, but the bearaucracy to do that was insurmountable so we continue.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

our org forbids plain http

is redirecting http to https also out of the question? because let's encrypt HTTP-01 accepts http -> https redirects:

Our implementation of the HTTP-01 challenge follows redirects, up to 10 redirects deep. It only accepts redirects to “http:” or “https:”, and only to ports 80 or 443. It does not accept redirects to IP addresses. When redirected to an HTTPS URL, it does not validate certificates.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

They in fact refuse to even do a redirect... it's monumentally stupid and I've repeatedly complained, but 'security' team says port 80 doing anything but dropping the packet or connection refused is bad...

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago
[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The same screwed up IT that doesn't let us do HTTP-01 challenges also doesn't let us do DNS except through some bs webform, and TXT records are not even vaguely in their world.

It sucks when you are stuck with a dumber broad IT organization...

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

Yikes. I feel for you man.