Why? Why is any of that necessary? I have no intentions of inspecting anyone's traffic. I just don't find HTTPS everywhere necessary. I have yet to hear a viable reason to do it.
OH NO! SOMEONE SAW MY WEB SITE!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18PbwYdjsps ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:59:23 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ssl certs I offer a directly contradicting opinion, that's it's foolish in the year 2018 to not implement end to end TLS wherever possible. The number of problems you can solve by avoiding things that maliciously MITM regular http traffic are considerable. The crypto libraries to do it properly (OpenSSL, etc for apache2 and nginx) and Letsencrypt are free. The Internet is moving towards things like DNS-over-TLS. Mail transport between most properly configured smtpd now will use TLS1.2 (my Postfix smtpd negotiates TLS successfully with >98% of big ISP/cloud providers' smtpd clusters). If a WISP thinks that they "need" things to remain unencrypted so that they can more easily manage their traffic or inspect it, they'll be left behind in the dustbin of history. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: I didn't say it was hard. I said it was unnecessary, perhaps even foolish. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:54:05 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ssl certs What's hard about doing TLS1.2 everywhere? Every web browser shipped or updated from mid-2012 onwards supports 1.2. The population of browsers that only support TLS1.0 and 1.1 is less than 1% now by most measurements of useragent on a large scale. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> "You should have https (TLS1.2) everywhere, on every sort of public facing httpd these days, with at least a letsencrypt certificate." We'll eventually have to because Google, etc. will make us, but it's extremely unnecessary. It's even foolish in many situations. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 4:49:01 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ssl certs I have seen studies showing that ecommerce checkout/cart servers do have lower "abandon order" rates when using EV SSL. If you're going to have one billing server hostname that you fully control (eg: https://billing.ispname.com ) it might be worth it. Things like Paypal, online banking and other stuff do make extensive use of EV SSL. It used to cost $395/year, now it's $85/year and dropping in price further. The big change coming in both Chrome and Firefox is that any non-https page will soon be marked as "Insecure" in the URL/address bar. You should have https (TLS1.2) everywhere, on every sort of public facing httpd these days, with at least a letsencrypt certificate. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Simon Westlake < simon@sonar.software > wrote: <blockquote> In 99.9% of cases, EV is useless. If you are going to educate your customers religiously to look not only for the green padlock, but for your name in the address bar, maybe it's worthwhile. Most people don't look or care. Google doesn't have an EV cert. Neither does Microsoft or Facebook. My power company doesn't. Most insurance companies don't. The only place I've seen them used heavily is in the financial sector, and I'd guess that's more about CYA than technical value. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > To: af@afmug.com Sent: 4/9/2018 3:03:38 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ssl certs <blockquote> these days there are essentially two types of SSL cert, DV and EV DV = domain validated. anyone can get one. this is the same idea for the $9 SSL certs and free letsencrypt. you only need to prove you control the domain/server it's issued for. EV = extended validation, you need to prove your corporate identity. should cost around $85/year. EV will result in the big green banner with company name in most modern web browsers. https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=EV+SSL+certificate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> tbh, im not really looking for alternative sources, im asking advice on what i need in a certificate On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Cameron Crum < cc...@murcevilo.com > wrote: <blockquote> ssls.com On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> Im no webdude is the main reason. I know alot of people use it, phishermen love them. Theyre "trusted, but not verified" which, to no webdude me, says "IT WILL BECOME UNTRUSTED". I hate godaddy, but theyre not likely to become untrusted, so its not something id have to deal with with little to no knowlege. plus I dont understand this 90 day thing On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> Can you use Let's Encrypt? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Steve Jones" < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 12:07:04 PM Subject: [AFMUG] ssl certs Our current cert for our billing server (powercode) is about to expire. For some time web browsers have been throwing up the insecure flag, probably needed to update it. What does a guy need in a certificate these days? godaddy is where we have it from, they have all kinds of options like green bar guarantee cert, etc. I have thought about getting one thats good for more than one page, just to get rid of the annoying security screen on our managment port and mobile. but the wildcard cert seems more pricey than id prefer for something thats just convienient rather than needed </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
