Remix.run Logo
thayne 3 days ago

Putting a manually generated cert on an embedded device is inherently insecure, unless you have complete physical control over the device.

And as mentioned in other comments, the revocation system doesn't really work, and reducing the validity time of certs reduces the risks there.

Unfortunately, there isn't really a good solution for many embedded and local network cases. I think ideally there would be an easy way to add a CA that is trusted for a specific domain, or local ip address, then the device can generate its own certs from a local ca. And/or add trust for a self-signed cert with a longer lifetime.

fiddlerwoaroof 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is a bad definition of security, I think. But you could come up with variations here that would be good enough for most home network use cases. IMO, being able to control the certificate on the device is a crucial consumer right

throwaway2037 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Real question: What is the correct way to handle certs on embedded devices? I never thought about it before I read this comment.

steve_gh 3 days ago | parent [-]

There are many embedded devices for which TLS is simply not feasible. For remote sensing, when you are relying on battery power and need to maximise device battery life, then the power budget is critical. Telemetry is the biggest drain on the power budget, so anything that means spending more time with the RF system powered up should be avoided. TLS falls into this category.

dcow 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, but the question is about devices that can reasonably run TLS.

The answer is local acme with your router issuing certs for your ULA prefix or “home zone” domain.

thayne 2 days ago | parent [-]

> The answer is local acme with your router issuing certs for your ULA prefix or “home zone” domain.

That would be nice. But most people don't have a router running an ACME server.

dcow 2 days ago | parent [-]

It should become a thing