|
|
|
|
|
by jeroenhd
523 days ago
|
|
Let's Encrypt doesn't work great when the Let's Encrypt client software has a bug or is misconfigured (one of those is true for your situation). I think keeping the validity long just removes incentives for people to bother fixing their setups. We've seen the shift from "Craig needs to spend a few days on certificate renewal every year" to full automation in most environments when the 90 day validity period was introduced, and shortening it to a week will only help further automation. You'll always have the option to skip the hassle (for a small fee, unless a Let's Encrypt competitor joins the market), but I feel the benefits outweigh the downsides. I personally would've preferred something like DANE working, but because the best we've got is DNSSEC and most of the internet doesn't even bother implementing that, I doubt we'll ever see that replace the current CA system. |
|
Some software now uses short lived certificates and even with decent configurations, there is an elevated level of problems specifically because of certificates. Especially in networks that use a lot of segmentation with very restricted network traffic.
I think a short lifetime can be a security benefit, but it should not become a dogma. It should be employed where it really makes sense but as a general rule inconvenient describes it quite well.