this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
434 points (99.1% liked)

Selfhosted

53743 readers
474 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
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 68 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm sorry but if you aren't using automated renewals then you are not using let's encrypt the way it's intended to be used. You should take this as an opportunity to get that set up.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 points 2 weeks 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 5 points 2 weeks 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 1 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks 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 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yikes. I feel for you man.

[–] bss03 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Technically my renews aren't automated. I have a nightly cronjob that should renew certificates and restart services, but when the certificates need renewal, it always fails because it wants to open a port I'm already using in order to answer the challenge.

I hear there's an apache module / configuration I can use, but I never got around to setting it up. So, when the cron job fails, I get an email and go run a script that stops apache, renews certs, and restarts services (including apache). I will be a bit annoying to have to do that more often, but maybe it'll help motivate me to configure apache (or whatever) correctly.

Debian Stable

[–] eclipse@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You could try using the DNS challenge instead; I find it a lot more convenient as not all my services are exposed.

[–] bss03 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

While I do have some control over my DNS and can create arbitrary TXT entries, I can't to that in an automated way easily. I'm using Gandi.net to host my DNS rather than running my own DNS sever(s).

EDIT: Gandi is listed https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/dns-providers-who-easily-integrate-with-lets-encrypt-dns-validation/86438 so maybe I can automate a DNS-01 challenge without too much issue, I just have to switch away from certbot to one of the other tools.

[–] Limonene@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The usual way for me is to give certbot write access to a directory in the HTTP root, so the server can keep running.

[–] bss03 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It does have access to the HTTP root directories. But, it still can't open port 80/443 when apache already has that port open.

EDIT: I guess my certbot renew just needs to be reconfigured to use a --webroot, so it doesn't try to listen on it's own.

[–] Zanathos@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

While I agree for my personal use, it's not so easy in an enterprise environment. I'm currently working to get services migrated OFF my servers that utilize public certificates to avoid the headache of manual intervention every 45 days.

While this is possible for servers and services I manage, it's not so easy for other software stacks we have in our environment. Thankfully I don't manage them, but I'm sure I'll be pulled into them at some point or another to help figure out the best path forward.

The easy path is obviously a load balanced front-end to load the certificate, but many of these services are specialized and have very elaborate ways to bind certificates to services outside of IIS or Apache, which would need to trust the newly issued load balancer CA certificate every 47 days.

[–] fatalicus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, this has become an issue for us at work as well.

Currently we are doing a POC for an in-house developed solution where a azure function app handles the renewal of certificates for any domain we have, both wildcard and named, and place the certificates in a key vault where services that need them can get access.

Looks to be working, so the main issue now is finding a non-US certificate provider that supports acme. EU has some but even more local there aren't many options.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I'm using automated renewals.

But, that just means there's a new cert file on disk. Now I have to convince a half a dozen different apps to properly reload that changed cert. That means fighting with Systemd. So Systemd has won the first few skirmishes, and I haven't had the time or energy to counterattack. Now instead of having to manually poke at it 4x per year, it's going to be closer to once a month. Ugh.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Half a dozen sounds like a lot, kinda curious what you are running? If they all are web services maybe use a reverse proxy or something?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Web services, and then various components of an email system.

[–] JadedBlueEyes@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you have the time to set it up, Stalwart can manage its own cert renewal.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't want to have to completely redo my whole email stack.

[–] JadedBlueEyes@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

Which is fair enough

[–] eclipse@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

You could try a path unit watching the cert directory (there are caveats around watching the symlinks directly) or most acme implementations have post renewal hooks you can use which would be more reliable.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Don't worry, they'll sell you new software for another $50.00/m/certificate to help with the new certificate fiddling you now have to do monthly. It didn't make sense for them to release it until they pushed through the 45 day window change through backchannels.