Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "https and self signed"
2016 Jun 20
3
https and self signed
On Sat, June 18, 2016 18:39, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/18/2016 02:49 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> On Fri, June 17, 2016 21:40, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>> https://letsencrypt.org/2015/11/09/why-90-days.html
>> With respect citing another person's or people's opinion in support
>> of
>> your own is not evidence in the sense I understand the word to
2016 Jun 18
2
https and self signed
On 06/18/2016 02:49 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Fri, June 17, 2016 21:40, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> https://letsencrypt.org/2015/11/09/why-90-days.html
> With respect citing another person's or people's opinion in support of
> your own is not evidence in the sense I understand the word to mean.
I'm not interested in turning this in to a discussion on epistemology.
2016 Jun 15
1
https and self signed
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:02:57AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Wed, June 15, 2016 9:17 am, Warren Young wrote:
> >>
> >> Nowadays it's quite easy to get normal ssl certificates for free. E.g.
> >
> > Today, I would prefer Let???s Encrypt:
> >
> > https://letsencrypt.org/
> >
> > It is philosophically aligned with the open
2016 Jun 20
0
https and self signed
On 06/20/2016 07:47 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Sat, June 18, 2016 18:39, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
>> I'm not interested in turning this in to a discussion on epistemology.
>> This is based on the experience (the evidence) of some of the world's
>> foremost experts in the field (Akamai, Cisco, EFF, Mozilla, etc).
> Really? Then why did you forward your reply a
2016 Jun 21
0
https and self signed
On Mon, June 20, 2016 13:16, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/20/2016 07:47 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> On Sat, June 18, 2016 18:39, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not interested in turning this in to a discussion on
>>> epistemology.
>>> This is based on the experience (the evidence) of some of the
>>> world's foremost experts in the
2016 Jun 15
3
https and self signed
On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> I do see WoSign there (though I'd prefer to avoid my US located servers
> have certificates signed by authority located in China, hence located sort
> of behind "the great firewall of China" - call me superstitious).
That?s a perfectly valid concern. The last I heard, modern
2016 Jun 15
8
https and self signed
On Jun 15, 2016, at 7:57 AM, ????????? ???????? <nevis2us at infoline.su> wrote:
>
> Nowadays it's quite easy to get normal ssl certificates for free. E.g.
>
> http://www.startssl.com
> http://buy.wosign.com/free
Today, I would prefer Let?s Encrypt:
https://letsencrypt.org/
It is philosophically aligned with the open source software world, rather than act as bait
2016 Jun 16
5
https and self signed
On 06/16/2016 10:53 AM, Walter H. wrote:
> lets encrypt only trusts for 3 months; would you really except in an
> onlineshop, someone trusts this shop?
> let us think something like this: "when the CA only trusts for 3
> months, how should I trust for a longer period
> which is important for warranty ..."
I doubt that most users check the dates on SSL certificates,
2016 Jun 16
2
https and self signed
On 06/16/2016 11:50 AM, Walter H. wrote:
> technically there is more: not the user needs to check the dates a SSL
> certificate is valid;
>
> just compare it with real life: which salesman would you trust more -
> the one that gets a new car every few years, which has the same
> advertisings on it and maybe has the same color, or the other one that
> gets nearly every
2016 Jun 17
1
https and self signed
On Thu, June 16, 2016 14:23, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Thu, June 16, 2016 1:09 pm, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>> I doubt that most users check the dates on SSL certificates,
>> unless they are familiar enough with TLS to understand that
>> a shorter validity period is better for security.
>
> Oh, this is what he meant: Cert validity period. Though I agree
>
2016 Jun 17
0
https and self signed
On Fri, June 17, 2016 10:19 am, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, June 16, 2016 14:23, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, June 16, 2016 1:09 pm, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>>
>>> I doubt that most users check the dates on SSL certificates,
>>> unless they are familiar enough with TLS to understand that
>>> a shorter validity period is better for
2016 Jun 15
0
https and self signed
On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> I do not see neither starttls.com nor letsencrypt.org between Authorities
>> certificates.
>
> That?s because they are not top-tier CAs.
I forgot to mention that letsencrypt.com uses one of its
2016 Jun 15
0
https and self signed
On Wed, June 15, 2016 9:17 am, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 7:57 AM, ?????????????????? ????????????????
> <nevis2us at infoline.su> wrote:
>>
>> Nowadays it's quite easy to get normal ssl certificates for free. E.g.
>>
>> http://www.startssl.com
>> http://buy.wosign.com/free
>
> Today, I would prefer Let???s Encrypt:
>
>
2016 Jun 15
1
https and self signed
On Wed, June 15, 2016 10:48 am, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not see neither starttls.com nor letsencrypt.org between
>>> Authorities
>>> certificates.
>>
2017 Aug 18
1
is a self signed certificate always invalid the first time?
On 8/11/2017 11:44 AM, Florian Beer wrote:
> On 2017-08-11 11:36, Michael Felt wrote:
>> I have looked at let's encrypt. Key issue for me is having to add a
>> lot python stuff that would otherwise not be on any server.
>
>
> I use acme.sh for all of my LetsEncrypt certs (web & mail), it is
> written in pure shell script, so no python dependencies.
>
2016 Jun 16
0
https and self signed
On 15.06.2016 16:17, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 7:57 AM, ????????? ????????<nevis2us at infoline.su> wrote:
>> Nowadays it's quite easy to get normal ssl certificates for free. E.g.
>>
>> http://www.startssl.com
>> http://buy.wosign.com/free
> Today, I would prefer Let?s Encrypt:
>
> https://letsencrypt.org/
>
> It is
2017 Aug 18
3
is a self signed certificate always invalid the first time
Michael Felt <michael at felt.demon.nl> writes:
>> I use acme.sh for all of my LetsEncrypt certs (web & mail), it is
>> written in pure shell script, so no python dependencies.
>> https://github.com/Neilpang/acme.sh
>
> Thanks - I might look at that, but as Ralph mentions in his reply -
> Let's encrypt certs are only for three months - never ending circus.
2016 Jun 16
0
https and self signed
On Thu, June 16, 2016 1:09 pm, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 10:53 AM, Walter H. wrote:
>> lets encrypt only trusts for 3 months; would you really except in an
>> onlineshop, someone trusts this shop?
>> let us think something like this: "when the CA only trusts for 3
>> months, how should I trust for a longer period
>> which is important for warranty
2016 Jun 16
1
https and self signed
On 06/16/2016 11:23 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> as the one who has to handle quite a
> few certificates, I only will go with certificates valid for a year,
> ...do I miss something?).
Yes. The tool that creates certificate/key pairs, submits the CSR, and
installs the certificate is intended to be fully automated. In
production, you should be running it as an automatic job.
As
2016 Jun 16
0
https and self signed
On 16.06.2016 20:09, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 10:53 AM, Walter H. wrote:
>> lets encrypt only trusts for 3 months; would you really except in an
>> onlineshop, someone trusts this shop?
>> let us think something like this: "when the CA only trusts for 3
>> months, how should I trust for a longer period
>> which is important for warranty