On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:38:47 -0800 Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Arnt Karlsen (a...@iaksess.no): > > > ..meanwhile, I too lean towards Ian's contrarianism: > > http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/lets_not_encrypt.xhtml > > I couldn't possibly agree more. Let's Encrypt is a Potemkin Village > approach to the SSL cert problem; it's pretend security that pretends > as if a broken and unreliable CA infrastructure weren't that. > > I continue to self-sign only, and if people want to know why they > should trust it, I'll say 'Either (a) don't, or (b) verify the hash > with me via any of a large variety of out-of-band methods, like any > sensible person.' If they counter that they want an automated lock > icon on their Web browsers so they are absolved of the need to think, > I say 'Sounds like a personal problem.' > > It makes me sad that this view is deemed 'contrarian'. As a > sysadmin, I consider it obvious common sense. > What about the fact that Google gives higher rankings to secure accounts? For google togive that higher ranking, does self-signing suffice for enhanced rankings, or does one have to have a cert signed by a certification company like Let's Encrypt? This makes a big difference for business websites. Thanks, SteveT Steve Litt Autumn 2020 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
