|
|
|
|
|
by tialaramex
1976 days ago
|
|
There's an argument for not doing OCSP on end-entity certificates if you can approach the lifetime for the certificates that you'd realistically need for OCSP responses anyway. Suppose you promise to issue OCSP revocations within 48 hours if it's urgent, and your OCSP responses are valid for 48 hours. That means after a problem happens OCSP revocation takes up to 96 hours to be effective. If you only issue certificates with lifetimes of 96 hours then OCSP didn't add anything valuable - the certificates expire before they can effectively be revoked anyway. Let's Encrypt is much closer to this idea (90 days) than many issuers were when it started (offering typically 1-3 years) but not quite close enough to argue revocation isn't valuable. However, the automation Let's Encrypt strongly encourages makes shortening lifetimes practical. Many of us have Let's Encrypt certs automated enough that if they renewed every 48 hours instead of every 60 days we'd barely care. The solution to excessive OCSP traffic and privacy risk is supposed to be OCSP stapling instead, but TLS servers that can't get stapling right are still ridiculously popular so that hasn't gone so well. |
|