| ▲ | akerl_ 3 days ago |
| As is already described by the comment thread we're replying in, "internal use" and "HTTPS" are very compatible. Corporations can run an internal CA, sign whatever internal certs they want, and trust that CA on their devices. |
|
| ▲ | franga2000 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| You use the term "internal use" and "corporations" like they're interchangable, but that's definitely not the case. Lots of small businesses, other organizations or even individuals want to have some internal services and having to "set up" a CA and add the certs to all client devices just to access some app on the local network is absurd! |
| |
| ▲ | akerl_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The average small business in 2025 is not running custom on-premise infrastructure to solve their problems. Small businesses are paying vendors to provide services, sometimes in the form of on-premise appliances but more often in the form of SaaS offerings. And I'm happy to have the CAB push those vendors to improve their TLS support via efforts like this. Individuals are in the same boat: if you're running your own custom services at your house, you've self-identified as being in the amazingly small fraction of the population with both the technical literacy and desire to do so. Either set up LetsEncrypt or run your own ACME service; the CAB is making clear here and in prior changes that they're not letting the 1% hold back the security bar for everybody else. | |
| ▲ | JimBlackwood 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think it's absurd and personally it feels easier to setup an internal CA than some of the alternatives. In the hackiest of setups, it's a few commands to generate a CA and issue a wildcard certificate for everything. Then a single line in the bootstrap script or documentation for new devices to trust the CA and you're done. Going a few steps further, setting up something like Hashicorp Vault is not hard and regardless of org size; you need to do secret distribution somehow. | | |
| ▲ | lucb1e 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > it's a few commands to generate a CA My dad still calls my terminals a "DOS window" and doesn't understand why I don't use GUIs like a normal person. He has his own business. He absolutely cannot just roll out a CA for secure comms with his local printer or whatever. He literally calls me to help with buying a PDF reader Myself, I'm employed at a small business and we're all as tech savvy as it gets. It took me several days to set it up on secure hardware (smartcard, figuring out compatibility and broken documentation), making sure I understand what all the options do and that it's secure for years to come and whatnot, working out what the procedure for issuing should be, etc. Eventually got it done, handed it over to the higher-up who gets to issue certs, distribute the CA cert to everyone... it's never used. We have a wiki page with TLS and SSH fingerprints | | |
| ▲ | JimBlackwood 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > My dad still calls my terminals a "DOS window" and doesn't understand why I don't use GUIs like a normal person. He has his own business. He absolutely cannot just roll out a CA for secure comms with his local printer or whatever. He literally calls me to help with buying a PDF reader This is fair. I assumed all small businesses would be tech startups, haha. | |
| ▲ | Retric 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The vast majority of companies operate just fine without understanding anything about building codes or vehicle repair etc. Paying experts (Ed: setting up internal infrastructure) is a perfectly viable option so the only real question is the amount of effort involved not if random people know how to do something. | | |
| ▲ | lucb1e 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Paying an expert to come set up a local CA seems rather silly when you'd normally outsource operating one to the people who professionally run a CA | | |
| ▲ | Retric 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You’d only need internal certificates if someone had set up internal infrastructure. Expecting that person to do a good job means having working certificates be they internal or external. |
| |
| ▲ | nilslindemann 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Paying experts is a perfectly viable option Congrats for securing your job by selling the free internet and your soul. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m not going to be doing this, but I care about knowledge being free not labor or infrastructure. If someone doesn’t want to learn then nobody needs to help them for free. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | disiplus 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We have this, it's not trivial for some small team, and you have to deal with stuff like conda env coming with it's own set of certs so you have to take care of that. It's better then the alternative of fighting with browsers but still it's not without extra complexity | | |
| ▲ | JimBlackwood 3 days ago | parent [-] | | For sure, nothing is without extra complexity. But, to me, it feels like additional complexity for whoever does DevOps (where I think it should be) and takes away complexity from all other users. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | msie 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow, amazing how out of touch this is. | | |
| ▲ | JimBlackwood 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Can you explain? I don't see why | | |
| ▲ | Henchman21 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You seem to think every business is a tech startup and is staffed with competent engineers. Perhaps spend some time outside your bubble? I’ve read many of your comments and you just do seem to be caught in your own little world. “Out of touch” is apt and you should probably reflect on that at length. | | |
| ▲ | JimBlackwood 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > You seem to think every business is a tech startup and is staffed with competent engineers. If we’re talking about businesses hosting services on some intranet and concerned about TLS, then yes, I assume it’s either a tech company or they have at least one competent engineer to host these things. Why else would the question be relevant? > “Out of touch” is apt and you should probably reflect on that at length. That’s a very weird personal comment based on a few comments on a website that’s inside a tech savvy bubble. Most people here work in IT, so I talk as if most people here work in IT. If you’re a mechanic at a garage or a lawyer at a law firm, I wouldn’t tell you rolling your own CA is easy and just a few commands. | | |
| ▲ | Henchman21 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You know, your perspective is valuable; I often operate as if the context is “all people everywhere”, which is rarely true and is definitely not true here. So I will take the error as mine and thank you for pointing it out :) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | acedTrex 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds like there is a market for a browser that is intranet only and doesnt do various checks | | |
| ▲ | jillyboel 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Good luck getting that distributed everywhere including the iOS app store and random samsung TVs that stopped receiving updates a decade ago. Not to mention the massive undertaking that even just maintaining a multi-platform chromium fork is. | |
| ▲ | JimBlackwood 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would you want this? Then on production, you'll run into issues you did not encounter on staging because you skipped various checks. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jillyboel 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Getting my parents to add a CA to their android, iphone, windows laptop and macbook just so they can use my self hosted nextcloud sounds like an absolute nightmare. The nightmare only intensifies for small businesses that allow their users to bring their own devices (yes, yes, sacrilege but that is how small businesses operate). Not everything is a massive enterprise with an army of IT support personnel. |
| |
| ▲ | crote 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Rolling out LetsEncrypt for a self-hosted Nextcloud instance is absolutely trivial. There are many reasons corporations might want to roll their own internal CA, but simple homelab scenarios like these couldn't be further from them. | | |
| ▲ | jillyboel 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, which is what I do. But the point is that this is very much internal use and rolling my own CA for it is a nightmare. | |
| ▲ | GabeIsko 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would you suggest something? I do this, but I'm not sure I would call maintaining my setup trivial. Got in trouble recently because my domain registrar deprecated an API call and it ends up that broke the camel's back in my automation setup. Or at least it did 90 days later. | | |
| ▲ | andrewmackrodt 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not a nextcloud user but have a homelab and use traefik for my reverse proxy which is configured to use letsencrypt dns challenges to issue wildcard certificates. I use cloudflares free plan to manage dns for my domains, although the registrar is different. This has been a set it and forgot solution for the last several years. | | |
| ▲ | GabeIsko 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Let's Encrypt cert renewal comes out of the box on traefik? I haven't kept up with it. I'm on a similar set and forget schedule with configured nginx and some crowdsec stuff, but the API change ended up killing off an afternoon of my time. | | |
| ▲ | andrewmackrodt 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yep, it supports ACME (Let's Encrypt) out the box and many DNS providers too. I mainly use namecheap as my registrar but configure Cloudflare as my DNS resolver; I find this easier from a configuration perspective and CF APIs have been stable for me so far. Traefik (by default) will attempt certificate renewal 30 days before expiry. Perhaps the defaults will change if the lifetime becomes 45 days. I don't think it's possible to override this value, without adjusting the certificate expiry days, but I've never felt the need to adjust it. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mysteria 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I actually do this for my homelab setup. Everyone basically gets the local CA installed for internal services as well as a client cert for RADIUS EAP-TLS and VPN authentication. Different devices are automatically routed to the correct VLAN and the initial onboarding doesn't take that long if you're used to the setup. Guests are issued a MSCHAP username and password for simplicity's sake. For internal web services I could use just Let's Encrypt but I need to deploy the client certs anyways for network access and I might as well just use my internal cert for everything. | | |
| ▲ | jillyboel 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Personally I'd absolutely refuse to install your CA as your guest. That would give you far too much power to mint certificates for sites you have no business snooping on. | | |
| ▲ | mysteria 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Guests don't install my CA as they don't need to access my internal services. If I wanted to set up an internal web server that's accessible to both guests and family members I'd use Let's Encrypt for that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | richardwhiuk 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why are your parents on a corporations internal network? | | |
| ▲ | jillyboel 3 days ago | parent [-] | | What corporation are you talking about? Have you never heard of someone self hosting software for their family and friends? You know, an intranet. | | |
| ▲ | smw 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Just buy a domain and use dns verification to get real certs for whatever internal addresses you want to serve? Caddy will trivially go get certs for you with one line of config Or cheat and use tailscale to do the whole thing. | |
| ▲ | DiggyJohnson 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Self hosting doesn’t usually apply connecting on a private network usually. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | stefan_ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do I add the root CA of my router manufacturer so I can visit its web interface on my internal network without having half the page functionality broken because of overbearing browser manufacturers who operate the "web PKI" as a cartel? This nowadays includes things such as basic file downloads. |
| |
|
| ▲ | ClumsyPilot 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Corporations can run an internal CA Having just implemented an internal CA, I can assure you, most corporations can’t just run an internal CA. Some struggle to update containers and tie their shoe laces. |
|
| ▲ | lxgr 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, but essentially every home user can only do so after jumping through extremely onerous hoops (many of which also decrease their security when browsing the public web). I’ve done it in the past, and it was so painful, I just bit the bullet and started accessing everything under public hostnames so that I can get auto-issued Letsencrypt certificates. |
|
| ▲ | rlpb 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Indeed they are compatible. However HTTPS is often unnecessary, particularly in a smaller organisation, but browsers mandate significant unnecessary complexity there. In that sense, brwosers are not suited to this use in those scenarios. |
| |
| ▲ | freeopinion 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If only browsers could understand something besides HTTPS. Somebody should invent something called HTTP that is like HTTPS without certificates. | | | |
| ▲ | tedivm 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I really don't see many scenarios where HTTPS isn't needed for at least some internal services. | | |
| ▲ | donnachangstein 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Then, I'm afraid, you work in a bubble. A static page that hosts documentation on an internal network does not need encryption. The added overhead of certificate maintenance (and investigating when it does and will break) is simply not worth the added cost. Of course the workaround most shops do nowadays is just hide the HTTP servers behind a load balancer doing SSL termination with a wildcard cert. An added layer of complexity (and now single point of failure) just to appease the WebPKI crybabies. | | |
| ▲ | progmetaldev 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Unfortunately, for a small business, there are many software packages that can cause all sorts of havoc on an internal network, and are simple to install. Even just ARP cache poisoning on an internal network can force everyone offline, while even a reboot of all equipment can not immediately fix the problem. A small company that can't handle setting up a CA won't ever be able to handle exploits like this (and I'm not saying that a small company should be able to setup their own CA, just commenting on how defenseless even modern networks are to employees that like to play around or cause havoc). Of course, then there are the employees who could just intercept HTTP requests, and modify them to include a payload to root an employee's machine. There is so much software out there that can destroy trust in a network, and it's literally download and install, then point and click with no knowledge. Seems like there is a market for simple and cheap solutions for internal networks, for small business. I could see myself making quite a bit off it, which I did in the mid-2000's, but I can't stand doing sales any more in my life, and dealing with support is a whole issue on it's own even with an automated solution. | |
| ▲ | imroot 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What overhead? Just about every web server these days supports ACME -- some natively, some via scripts, and you can set up your own internal CA using something like step-ca that speaks ACME if you don't want your certs going out to the transparency log. The last few companies I've worked at had no http behind the scenes -- everything, including service-to-service communications was handled via https. It's a hard requirement for just about everything financial, healthcare, and sensitive these days. | | |
| ▲ | donnachangstein 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > What overhead? [proceeds to describe a bunch of new infrastructure and automation you need to setup and monitor] So when ACME breaks - which it will, because it's not foolproof - the server securely hosting the cafeteria menus is now inaccessible, instead of being susceptible to interception or modification in transit. Because the guy that has owned your core switches is most concerned that everyone will be eating taco salad every day. |
| |
| ▲ | brendoelfrendo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure it does! You may not need confidentiality, but what about integrity? | | |
| ▲ | donnachangstein 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It's a very myopic take. Someone that has seized control of your core network such that they were capable of modifying traffic, is not going to waste precious time or access modifying the flags of ls on your man page server. They will focus on more valuable things. Just because something is possible in theory doesn't make it likely or worth the time invested. You can put 8 locks on the door to your house but most people suffice with just one. Someone could remove a piece of mail from your unlocked rural mailbox, modify it and put it back. Do you trust the mail carrier as much as the security of your internal network? But it's not really a concern worth investing resources into for most. | | |
| ▲ | growse 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Someone that has seized control of your core network such that they were capable of modifying traffic, is not going to waste precious time or access modifying the flags of ls on your man page server. They will focus on more valuable things. Ah, the "both me and my attackers agree on what's important" fallacy. What if they modify the man page response to include drive-by malware? |
|
| |
| ▲ | tedivm 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm afraid you didn't read my response. I explicitly said I can't see a case where it isn't needed for some services. I never said it was required for every service. Once you've got it setup for one thing it's pretty easy to set it up everywhere (unless you're manually deploying, which is an obvious problem). |
|
| |
| ▲ | therealpygon 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And it is even more trivial in a small organization to install a Trusted Root for internally signed certificates on their handful of machines. Laziness isn’t a browser issue. | | |
| ▲ | rlpb 3 days ago | parent [-] | | How is that supposed to work for an IoT device that wants to work out of the box using one of these HTTPS-only browser APIs? | | |
| ▲ | metanonsense 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I am not saying I‘d do this, but in theory you could deploy a single reverse proxy in front of your HTTP-only devices and restrict traffic accordingly. |
|
|
|