Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "https and self signed"
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 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 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 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 17
0
https and self signed
On 17/06/16 15:46, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, June 16, 2016 13:53, Walter H. wrote:
>> On 15.06.2016 16:17, Warren Young wrote:
>>> but it also affects the other public CAs: you can???t get a
>>> publicly-trusted cert for a machine without a publicly-recognized
>>> and -visible domain name. For that, you still need to use
>>> self-signed
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 17
4
https and self signed
On Thu, June 16, 2016 13:53, Walter H. wrote:
> On 15.06.2016 16:17, Warren Young wrote:
>> but it also affects the other public CAs: you can???t get a
>> publicly-trusted cert for a machine without a publicly-recognized
>> and -visible domain name. For that, you still need to use
>> self-signed certs or certs signed by a private CA.
>>
> A private CA is the
2016 Jun 17
2
https and self signed
On 17.06.2016 19:57, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>>> Then OCSP stapling is the way to go but it could be a real PITA to
>>> setup for the first time and may not be supported by older browsers
>>> anyway.
>>>
>> not really, because the same server tells the client that the SSL
>> certificate is good, as the SSL certificate itself;
>> these must
2016 Jun 18
1
https and self signed
On 06/17/2016 07:56 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, June 16, 2016 14:09, 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.
> What evidence do you possess that supports this assertion and would
> you care to share it
2016 Jun 17
2
https and self signed
On 17.06.2016 16:27, ????????? ???????? wrote:
> Walter H. ????? 2016-06-16 22:54:
>> On 16.06.2016 21:42, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think OCSP is critical for free certificates suitable for
>>> small businesses and personal sites.
>>>
>> this is philosophy;
>>
>> I'd say when you do it then do it good, else
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 18
0
https and self signed
On Fri, June 17, 2016 11:06, Walter H. wrote:
> On 17.06.2016 16:46, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> On Thu, June 16, 2016 13:53, Walter H. wrote:
>>> On 15.06.2016 16:17, Warren Young wrote:
>>>> but it also affects the other public CAs: you can???t get a
>>>> publicly-trusted cert for a machine without a publicly-recognized
>>>> and -visible
2016 Jun 18
0
https and self signed
On Sat, 2016-06-18 at 15:39 -0700, 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).
The same Mozilla Foundation that got USD 50 million from Google some
years ago and the same Mozilla
2016 Jun 19
1
https and self signed
On Sat, June 18, 2016 6:50 pm, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2016-06-18 at 15:39 -0700, 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).
>
> The same Mozilla
2014 Apr 18
4
Changing SSL certificates - switching from self-signed to RapidSSL
Hi all,
Ok, been wanting to do this for a while, and I after the Heartbleed
fiasco, the boss finally agreed to let me buy some real certs...
Until now, we've been using self-signed certs with the following dovecot
config:
ssl = required
ssl_cert = </etc/ssl/ourCerts/imap.pem
ssl_key = </etc/ssl/ourCerts/imap_key.pem
Now, I've created new keys/certs and the CSR, got the new
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 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 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 15
1
https and self signed
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/15/2016 6:47 AM, Jerry Geis wrote:
>> How do I get past this? I was looking to just self sign for https.
>
> in my admittedly limited experience with this stuff, you need to create your
> own rootCA, and use that to sign your certificates, AND you need to take the
> public key of the rootCA and import it into any trust
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