Slashdot Mirror


SSL Certificates For Intranet Sites?

wiedzmin writes "Anybody who has worked around anything dubbed an 'appliance' in the past few years knows that they come with a management Web interface, which is usually 'secure.' However, no company in their right (accounting) mind will spend $400/year per appliance to buy Verisign SSL certificates to secure Web interfaces on networks that may not even be open to the public Internet. So network administrators, and sometimes end users, are stuck clicking away at an annoying 'Continue to this website (not recommended)' message every time they connect, setting an unhealthy precedent when it comes to the actual security of SSL and the much-hyped MITM attacks. So the question I have for the Slashdot crowd is: do you have valid SSL certificates on your intranet sites, and if so what do you use? Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks."

286 comments

  1. Private Certificate Authority by LostOne · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why not set up a private certificate authority? Then you can manufacture as many SSL certificates as you need for private use and all you need to do is distribute the certificate authority's certificate to each browser once for the entire enterprise. Every browser out there has a way to add additional trusted certificate authorities. Indeed, if you have a "centrally controlled" provisioning system, you can even add the certificate to your default system build. Then the scary warnings go away completely.

    --

    If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
    1. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.

    2. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.

      Damn, over in two posts.

    3. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      I run 20 FreeBSD servers on my company's LAN, and I manually create and self sign SSL certs for all my Apache web and Tomcat java servers. No reason not to, as TFS mentions, leave it up to the stupid end users...

    4. Re:Private Certificate Authority by amorsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The available certificate servers which are Free Software tend to be rather user-unfriendly. Maintaining certificate revocation lists and handling certificates for different purposes (mail, web, code, client authentication, vpn...) are needlessly time-consuming chores. Obviously any competent system administrator can script their way out of it, but in this case it is a rather large effort.

      I would be very happy to hear about an easier solution.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    5. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, over in two posts.

      Don't get your hopes up. This article will be re-posted tomorrow. You must be new here!

    6. Re:Private Certificate Authority by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      The OP doesn't want to touch every desktop. I suspect that Active Directory would help with this though. Login scripts or perhaps even registering a CA within the domain that extends to all PCs in the domain.

    7. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Sadly though this is the only way to secure at a low cost. A PKI is not a small feat either, but it is something that you should be using. Not only for web traffic either, a PKI is useful for a lot of things (VPN, RDP, EFS). Plus you can publish through AD DS and this becomes very simple to update and maintain.

    8. Re:Private Certificate Authority by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.

      FTFP: "Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks."

      Before snarking on the FP author, perhaps you should actually read the FP's question?

    9. Re:Private Certificate Authority by MeanMF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah AD group policy can do this very easily, no scripts required. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772491.aspx

    10. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Trevelyan · · Score: 5, Informative
      10secs of googling gave me this:
    11. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Baba+Ram+Dass · · Score: 1

      It's what my company does, and it works great. Except those of us that use Firefox. (Though that wouldn't be a problem if the security dept. supported non-IE browsers.

      --
      Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
    12. Re:Private Certificate Authority by corbettw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't mean he's wrong. Seriously, this is SSL 101, and anyone tasked with setting up SSL-protected websites should've intuitively known the answer before the question was even asked.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    13. Re:Private Certificate Authority by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Why go to the trouble? Buy a single wildcard cert from RapidSSL (they're not expensive), and install it everywhere. Just sayin'.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    14. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Yaa+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but every certificate authority is manually distributed at some point, the verizon's of this planet included, they just have the convenience that browser manufacturers do that for them.

      The most automatic way to do what the main requester wants is to set up that certificate authority and roll out your browsers automatically after adding that certificate authority it's root to that browser.

      I do not know any other way to do this automatically.

    15. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 4, Informative

      TinyCA2 is rather easy to use.

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
    16. Re:Private Certificate Authority by FreelanceWizard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. An "enterprise PKI," as Microsoft likes to call it, handily solves this issue. Just add the root CA and intermediate CA certificates to the computers via Group Policy -- just as you would if you needed to trust a novel CA (such as, for instance, the DoD CAs). As an added bonus, if you activate auto-enrollment on Windows, your users get access to encrypted and signed e-mail, and you can trivially kick PPTP VPNs to the curb and use IKEv2 or L2TP instead. With a little more work, you can even get IPSec working. From a browser perspective, most if not all Windows browsers rely on the platform's cryptography infrastructure, so there's no need to install the certificates in each browser.

      Unfortunately, while the Microsoft CA is relatively easy to use, using it for anything non-trivial requires the Enterprise or Datacenter edition of Windows Server. This is because you can't modify the certificate templates on lesser editions, and you need those to set up specialized certificates for, say, Configuration Manager.

      If you're manually distributing certificates in any Windows infrastructure, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      The Freelance Wizard
    17. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      A variant would work if all browser user were technical enough to download and install a browser, that is a central in house downloadable copy with that root installed in the browser.

    18. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what we do. Certainly your solution (and the one we use at work) can also remove the manual distribution by simply checking the correct boxes in Group Policy in Active Directory and the certificates and all are distributed to any domain joined machine. For those non-domain joined machines it is, unfortunately, a manual process to get the certificates into the trusted store on the machines.

    19. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am. The asker is still an incompetent idiot. If I was his employer and saw him asking such basic questions about network management that anyone with a sliver of a brain could work out, we'd be sitting down for a serious talk about his length of stay with the company.

    20. Re:Private Certificate Authority by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but if you're don't feel like using using the OpenSSL command line, you could always use a GUI front-end like TinyCA to make life easier. On Ubuntu, it's available prepackaged.

      --
      Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    21. Re:Private Certificate Authority by leptechie · · Score: 1

      He's suggesting distributing the CA certificates, not the ones shipping with the appliances. And done right, only one (or if you're conscious, two) CA certs need to go into the distribution/build. Very low overhead.
      I would even hazard that CRL distribution is not needed if the certs are issued once and all traces (request, key etc) destroyed right away, since then only the Root CA is exposed, and the issued certs are as likely to be compromised as the self-generated ones the appliances have. I know some appliances that won't even let you import private keys, only exporting requests, so even more secure.
      It gets me down how complex PKI is perceived to be, but then I'm mystified by my car's cruise control...

    22. Re:Private Certificate Authority by chill · · Score: 1

      I interpreted "manually distributing your certificates and CRL" as "walking it around".

      He could e-mail the cert to everyone with instructions to have them install it.

      He could also push a customized version of IE or Firefox with the cert and CRL already in the store.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    23. Re:Private Certificate Authority by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2, Informative

      that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company

      So automate the distribution. Logon script, group policy, OS update patch, software distribution push out, whatever. You do it once and it's done. Then put it on your standard image and never worry about it again.

    24. Re:Private Certificate Authority by apparently · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A variant would work if all browser user were technical enough to download and install a browser, that is a central in house downloadable copy with that root installed in the browser.

      That only works if you're also fine with local users having the privileges to install software on their workstations. So you're only trading one security issue for another.

    25. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows AD policies can do that for you. That's how we do it over here. (at least, if you use IE)

      As soon as a new pc joins the domain, the internal CA root cert is installed.

    26. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Provos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do you assume it has to be manually distributed? CRL and Certificates could be distributed through any enterprise desktop management system, such as SCCM or remediation managers such as Hercules.

      --
      I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
    27. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You give them too much credence. What the author is asking is for, by saying that they want something that implements an internal SSL infrastructure without having to do anything "manually", is something that does it without any work on their part what-so-ever.

      When you tell people like that they will need to distribute one file to all of their workstations (the certificate to the browser) and make some changes to the system (accepting the certificate as valid) they freak out because they don't understand the requirements of their job title. Does "manually" include writing the script to implement it? Ooops, that too means you must know how to run one of those computer thing-a-ma-jigs.

      Sorry, but I don't know of anything called work that doesn't require something to be done "manually". I won't be posting for awhile because I'm going to go write an appliance that hacks all other appliances and workstations in order to emplace a full certificate structure. I plan to sell it to idiots who ask these types of questions by telling them that it makes things more secure "automatically" rather than "manually".

    28. Re:Private Certificate Authority by xonicx · · Score: 1

      Certificate is not a single public key but 'chain of trust'. If you get one certificate from a known CA, you should be able to sign more self generated certificates with that.

    29. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Xonstantine · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you are using Windows on a network controlled by a DC, you can push the CA trust out through group policy...

    30. Re:Private Certificate Authority by KevMar · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you make your microsoft certificate authority the domain authority, I think that it will automatically distribute the root cert to every domain joined computer at the next computer policy refresh.

      Not only that, but there is a section of group policy just for certificates. It is very easy to work with (if you are using a Microsoft authority).

      The cost is that of another server (or a few servers for a large organisation).

      --
      Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
    31. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then you have to use IE.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    32. Re:Private Certificate Authority by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if you have a "centrally controlled" provisioning system, you can even add the certificate to your default system build. Then the scary warnings go away completely.

      If using Microsoft Internet Explorer, one group policy entry will distribute the CA certificate to all domain computers.

      It's one of the things Firefox users have a hard time with, since there's no central management, they have to put up with SSL warnings on the intranet sites. Which is one of the unfortunate reasons Internet Explorer use is required in some organizations.

      Enterprise CA is a standard part of modern enterprises that have intranets

    33. Re:Private Certificate Authority by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Yes. Roll it out as part of a web browser software update for Firefox, kind of messy, involves manual work.

      For Internet Explorer users, one group policy will update the Workstation's Trusted CA certificates store to include your custom certificate. And IE will use that to validate trust of the cert.

    34. Re:Private Certificate Authority by sverdlichenko · · Score: 1

      In year 2010 we have automatic certificate distribution facilities in enterprise systems.

    35. Re:Private Certificate Authority by lazyforker · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I was going to say. If you're using Windows workstations in an Active Directory domain this is a fairly straightforward piece of work. Create your own CA. Add the CA's cert to the Trusted Root store on workstations using GPOs. Done. We actually have this configuration - it automates a lot of cert management processes. I can't imagine that it's much harder in a Linux/Unix/Mac OS X environment.

    36. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes! The asker might *gasp* actually have to do the work implied by their job!!! We can't have that!! I'm sorry, but his question is nothing but asking to have his hand held through an extremely trivial task that anyone with an ounce of competency would have already worked out.

    37. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      You are right but it is only cost neutral for a certain size of company, large ones are better off doing in house CA practices and the price of a CA is often too steep for small companies.

    38. Re:Private Certificate Authority by BagOBones · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't even need group policy... once you install a Windows CA in Enterprise mode its automatic, the chain will be distributed and trusted via active directory.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    39. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Windows AD policies can do that for you. That's how we do it over here. (at least, if you use IE)

      For those who don't like using IE, you can also distribute Firefox settings via group policies by using FrontMotion.

    40. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So use whatever software distribution system you use to push your CA cert to everyone's browser. This isn't a new or particularly challenging problem, but it does assume you have some infrastructure in place for managing desktops. If you don't, then users seeing big scary security warnings are the least of your problems.

    41. Re:Private Certificate Authority by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      We don't manually distribute certificates or CRLs here. Software distribution for all other purposes also serves that one.

      Being snarky and encouraging the poster to indulge in a more fully-featured systems management environment is appropriate here. If you want to leave the porch, you'll have to run like a big dog... Otherwise, stay home.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    42. Re:Private Certificate Authority by JohnnyKlunk · · Score: 1

      Can confirm, if they're MS machines in a domain with active directory this is free and simple.

    43. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen what it takes to install certs and CRLs to Firefox? I suggest you take a look before taking a jab at your Security Department. It is not simple.

    44. Re:Private Certificate Authority by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      Get a low cost email certificate, create a self signed root certificate authority (best done on a smart card or other protected hardware) and distribute your root certificate via signed email.

      Many appliances don't have an API for anything except an internally self signed certificate. So in many cases you will be stuck with the warnings.

    45. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are in a Windows/AD environment then pushing out that CA certificate to all your workstations is a 30 second activity creating a new GPO... No manually distributing anything.

    46. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Remotely update large numbers of workstations without having to sit at every desk in the company is just one of those things that sysadmins do. If you can't do that then you should focus on learning how to do it first and worry about how SSL certificates work later.

    47. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Reece400 · · Score: 1

      http://www.namecheap.com/learn/other-services/ssl-certificates.asp>NameCheap Found them only recently, prices were so much lower we weren't sure, but they work fine.

    48. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Reece400 · · Score: 2, Informative
    49. Re:Private Certificate Authority by ayvee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This may be noobish, but is there some way to set up a certificate authority, have its verification key (V) be publicly available from a website or something, and have V signed by (say) Verisign?

    50. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 1

      Haha, hilariously true.

      I knew nothing about certificate's, certificate authorities, certificate servers and running your own private certificate authority, but I was curious.. (This was as I read the original question, before the comments) so I went to wikipedia and spent about 2 minutes reading about SSL certificates until I started reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_server, and noticed the Open Source Implementations part...

      Immediately I thought, "Why can't you just run your own certificate authority and add it as trusted in the browser, there has to be a way in most modern browsers."

      So I came here to answer the question, with no prior experience or knowledge on the subject... of course it was already answered, but still..really need to rethink your job choice when you have to ask how to do something instead of having that spark and passion to know and learn more... When I was working IT for a small company I pretty much WINGED IT using google.. and you know what? The people who ran the place thought I was some kind of boy-genius wizard. But in reality, whenever I was asked to do something, I pretty much taught myself on site and at home using google, and got it done. When you love what you do, you want to know every aspect of it.. I just don't understand why this question was even asked.

      --
      Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    51. Re:Private Certificate Authority by kingramon0 · · Score: 1

      If it's a Microsoft shop, you set up a Certificate Authority (free) and distribute it to clients via Group Policy. Done. No manual distribution.

    52. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Killer+Orca · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links, very informative. I have the same basic question as the submitter but with a slight variation: Do the certs get installed on the computer or printer if you want to make the https web management feature not give you that warning?

    53. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Which is actually Redundant as the OP question specified

      Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company?

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    54. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Chrome mirrors my Windows certs, just like IE does. Why doesn't FireFox do this?

      Just seems like FF doesn't want to be used in the enterprise.

      I don't use FF, so I probably don't know how to set this up, but really, why should you have to jump through hoops? Should be defaulted on.

    55. Re:Private Certificate Authority by alta · · Score: 1

      NO kidding... so many ways to do this...

      Even if he's running linux clients there's tons of way to have the clients do this, even if it's as low tech as'

      Everybody copy and paste this into a terminal

      yum install -y http://intranetserver/company-certs.rpm

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    56. Re:Private Certificate Authority by heypete · · Score: 1

      Server certs issued by CAs have the "Not a CA" flag set. You cannot use server certs to sign other certs.

      Well, I suppose you COULD, but no client worth their salt would trust them.

      Some CAs offer managed-intermediate-root services where they host an intermediate root for your company and provide you with an interface for issuing/revoking/etc. certificates for your organization, but that's often overkill. It's also not cheap.

    57. Re:Private Certificate Authority by FormulaTroll · · Score: 1

      What's Verizon got to do with anything here?

    58. Re:Private Certificate Authority by sprior · · Score: 1

      Anyone figure out how to add certificates or authorities on Android?

    59. Re:Private Certificate Authority by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry, but every certificate authority is manually distributed at some point, the verizon's of this planet included, they just have the convenience that browser manufacturers do that for them.

      And there's the big difference.

      The most automatic way to do what the main requester wants is to set up that certificate authority and roll out your browsers automatically after adding that certificate authority it's root to that browser.

      No, the way to do what the main requester wants is to get a free cert whose CA is recognized by most popular browsers. You can get some from: http://www.startssl.com/
      Their "product" comparison: http://www.startssl.com/?app=40

      You might be able to get free certs from elsewhere.

      Apparently some sites sell rapidssl wildcard certs for cheap. I can't remember which ones. Can't find them via Rapidssl's own website for some reason ;).

      You have to understand the truth of the matter. Most people dealing with https don't really care that much about security. All they want is not to have those scary browser warnings.

      If they really cared about security they would realize that most popular browsers by default do not warn you if a site's CA has changed, or a server cert has changed rather prematurely (I use certificate patrol for that). And that as long as this remains true, all the talk about https security is just talk.

      So people should just solve the submitters problem, and implying he's incompetent or even calling him incompetent. Because how many of you are relying on https to keep stuff safe and have CA certs in your browser from CA's you do not trust?

      FWIW how many of you really trust Verisign? Stick your hand up if you're that incompetent ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisign#Controversies ). Guess who signs zillions of certs though, and what happens if you don't tell the browser to trust Verisign's certs. Guess who signed a fake Microsoft's cert? http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-04.html

      So just accept that those certs are mainly to make people feel safe and make the browser warnings go away.

      --
    60. Re:Private Certificate Authority by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.

      You are assuming that this is a centrally controlled provisioning environment. This does not work in a setting where people bring their own computers - like in a university classroom.

      BTW - why are you such an @sshole? The whole point of ask slashdot is to generate discussion about how to solve problems - not attract personal character attacks from ACs.

    61. Re:Private Certificate Authority by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Oops I meant to type: "and stop implying he's incompetent". Somehow the stop got deleted...

      --
    62. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Eil · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's impolite, but the truth. If your job entails running a company's computer systems, you should already know (or be able to Google) the fact that you either have to pony up for SSL certs or generate and distribute your own. There is no in between. In systems administration, the question of "how do we solve this?" is almost always answered by "rolling our own" or "paying someone".

    63. Re:Private Certificate Authority by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      When did asking a question cease to be a valid method of finding things out?

      I mean, it's great that you can find information like this from Google or Wikipedia, but it can be a risky strategy, and you might end up following a howto that results in a non-optimal implementation, or lacks crucial information, or doesn't adequately detail the pitfalls of a particular method. Or maybe you're like me, and sometimes you just can't think of the right search terms to use.

      I would have thought that Slashdot would be a good place to come for someone looking to learn from others' knowledge and experience, and perhaps to find out the pros and cons of different ways of solving the problem. I've got this far down the page and I'm sad to say that this hasn't been the case.

    64. Re:Private Certificate Authority by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      From their help pages:

      Unfortunately, we do not offer certificates for Intranet use.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    65. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because your sysadmin will then be able to issue "valid" certificates for www.wellsfargo.com, www.citibank.com, etc.

    66. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      AD's set of default group policy templates only makes it trivial for IE; but you can also impose login, logoff, startup, shutdown, and a bunch of other locations for running arbitrary scripts/programs.

      Most browsers, and any other programs that have SSL-related business, either store their set of trusted certs/authorities as a set of certificate files in some reasonably easily discoverable directory or piggyback IE's settings. If the former, you just execute a trivial file-copy script via group policy any time before the user has a chance to see the scary message. If the latter, you just use the IE method.

    67. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the benefit of the OP then, add an OCSP server, eg.: http://www.openca.org/projects/ocspd/

      You run your internal CA so you don't have to clicky-click annoying warnings and OCSP so you don't have to manually distribute CRLs.

      There. Thread closed!

    68. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because your question implies that the asker is actually competent at their job. Anyone with half a brain would have already come up with that solution a long time ago.

      FTFP: "Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks."

      Before snarking on the FP author, perhaps you should actually read the FP's question?

      The OP should have an automated build process set up, as it "best practice" in most IT literature that I've come across. The CA's cert should be installed automatically as part of that build process.

      If the OP does not have an auto-build system: why not?

    69. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that there are more readers to these threads than the original poster and those who supposedly already know all of the answers like you. I don't know what the answer is and didn't ask the question, but am reading this thread, thereby giving it relevance to be on the front page of /., in order to find out the answer to the question.

    70. Re:Private Certificate Authority by certain+death · · Score: 1

      You must be new here...no one reads anything before being snarky...WTF man?!?

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    71. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are "inhouse CA practices?"

      I Don't understand, what is to steep a price on free?

      I can generate my self signed CA cert (for the cost of two minutes work + a few hours to get your head around it) and then distribute it to all browsers once. After that I can generate server certs as many as I need and sign them with my in-house CA and apply them to the servers.

    72. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah AD group policy can do this very easily, no scripts required.

      A rose by any other name...

    73. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFP: "Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks."

      Oh, good point!
      Here's a wacky idea: how about automatically distributing your certificates? (emphasis mine)

      By the way: how does this company distributes its e-mail? Perhaps another interesting topic, I understand that there have been some improvements since the early 80s.</sarcasm>

    74. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what we did. Works like a champ.

    75. Re:Private Certificate Authority by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Cool story bro

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    76. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the verizon's of this planet included,

      I wouldn't take any advice from someone who uses a cell phone company for all their certificates!!!!

    77. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Chang · · Score: 1

      Computer

    78. Re:Private Certificate Authority by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Unless their job is to setup and manage a private certificate at their place of work, it would be utterly incompetent of them to waste their employer's time if it's to serve a small roll in the business.

    79. Re:Private Certificate Authority by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Can you use group policies with Chrome yet?

    80. Re:Private Certificate Authority by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought. How is this even a question?

    81. Re:Private Certificate Authority by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Your Certificate and CRL come from the CA. You pass the CA's cert down, and then the certs for the Web apps come from the Web server signed by the CA and there you go.

    82. Re:Private Certificate Authority by outZider · · Score: 1

      I would be curious why someone would combine a lack of local privileges with the inability to remotely administer those workstations.

      --
      - oZ
      // i am here.
    83. Re:Private Certificate Authority by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Dude you generate the cert yourself, you stand up the server yourself, and you're good.

    84. Re:Private Certificate Authority by necrogram · · Score: 1

      Group Policy can distribute your public copy of your root cert to you're windows box in your AD environmnent. Whole process should take way under an hour to do.

    85. Re:Private Certificate Authority by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Deliberately discarding the reasonable solution doesn't make him any less stupid.

    86. Re:Private Certificate Authority by apparently · · Score: 1

      Easy answer: you wouldn't.

    87. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure Chrome on Windows uses the same system-level certificate store, so if you can auto-install for IE, you can auto-install for Chrome.

    88. Re:Private Certificate Authority by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      My university had a login landing page with a self-signed certificate. They included a link that installed their CA certificate in whatever browser you were using.

    89. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes! I've discovered lately when evaluating Chrome for workstation use that Chrome now has a (ever-growing) list of group policies available. Grab the adm/admx templates and MSI installer and check them out.

      Coincidentally, the latest Chromium/Chrome Canary/Chrome Dev builds also started ignoring IE's trusted zone lists and so windows integrated authentication (Kerberos Negotiate) stopped working. Boo. Supposedly there's a new policy that I can set to fix this. I reported the issue but am waiting for clarification on whether this is intended behavior, a security issue, or what.

    90. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      I don't think Verisign will sign your private root certificate, no matter how much you ask. At the very least, I doubt they'd sign it with flags that make it able to sign other certificates in a chain, it'd just be for verifying the authenticity of the (your) private root.

    91. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you just get *.intra.domain.tld?

    92. Re:Private Certificate Authority by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip about Certificate Patrol. I knew about the problem, but I did not know there was a solution.

      In fact, watching for changes is probably more secure by itself then the current approach. I never worry about whether I an connecting to the right server over ssh.

    93. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if you only think you have half a brain you self sign everything internal, then decide it's a great cost savings and do the same for your internet facing pages as well.
      And do this for government agencies in the state that have to go through you for all public facing pages, including your VPN setup that points towards "secured" legal networks.

      Yeah... I'm not too thrilled with the network guys we have to deal with.

    94. Re:Private Certificate Authority by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      "Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks."

      • If you don't have administrative control of all the clients, buy a CA certificate from a commercial CA.
      • If you do have administrative control of all the clients, but you don't know how to deploy self-signed CA certs, surely the users who connect to these admin interfaces should be sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to import a CA certificate (which you distribute to them by email or via URL), or you should be asking about how to automate manual configuration (and specify which platforms you are interested in).
      • Your CA certificate should include a CRL distribution point URI (HTTP or LDAP). Decent client software should update the CRL periodically by checking the CRL distribution point, you should not need to distribute the CRL yourself.
      • Clients that support OCSP should actually validate all certificates online, meaning CRLs aren't necessary (for said clients).

      So, the problem is reduced to ensuring you have CA software which

      • Automates or reduces the effort of CRL creation and publishing
      • Supports OCSP

      However, before you do that, you may want to test "custom" certificates on the appliances in question. A number of appliances I have used that ship with SSL certificates do not actually support custom SSL certificates that well, including:

      • Sun ILOMs, which offer the option to upload a certificate, but this feature hasn't ever worked for me (on Sun X4100, X4200, X4500, X4600, X4150, X4450)
      • HP iLOs, which generate new self-signed HP-identified certificates after power failures or iLO reset, with the same subjectDN and serial (so your browser will complain even more about it ...)

      Depending on how many, and what kind of, devices you have, you may also care about enrolment (and automatic renewal), so SCEP may be a useful feature (e.g. if you have Cisco devices such as VPN concentrators, or Cisco VPN client software). For platforms which don't have native certificate enrolment functionality, you may want to consider other certificate enrolment tools (e.g. autosscep). Of course, you may also need to at least think about CA certificate rollover (what you need to do when your original self-signed CA certificate has less lifetime than the cert you want to issue ...)

      I have used OpenCA (which supports OCSP, SCEP, CRL publishing etc.), but it is a bit fiddly, the OpenXPKI project (a fork/rewrite of OpenCA) may be usable now. Another alternatives are dogtag (the open-source version of Red Hat's Certificate Server that they got when they bought parts of Netscape).

      Of course, if you have already spent a lot of money on MS-client-management solutions (AD+CALs), MS Certificate Server is a no-additional-software-licensing-cost option.

    95. Re:Private Certificate Authority by welshie · · Score: 1

      cacert.org works for me. Indeed, their root certificate isn't included by default with IE or Firefox, but it's a one-off client change, and you can't argue with the price. If the clients happen to be in a Windows Domain, they can easily be forced to do whatever the group policy tells them to.

    96. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I would love, absolutely love, to see a cookbook example as to how to do this. I know how to setup a private CA. I know how to use that CA to generate certs and how to make Apache serve them. What I cannot do is make Firefox pre-accept certs that are signed by that CA key. Whenever you make a new cert or add a browser client, you *still* have to accept the cert. I have never (in years of trying) successfully added a trusted CA.

      I get my CA cert in the trusted authority section... and it doesn't work. And if I ask for a cookbook example of how to do it, I invariably get directed "to google".

      None of this stuff holds any mystery for me, and I'm not clueless, but I have never successfully accomplished this one simple task: Make a CA for an intranet and establish it in all the browsers in such a way that clients do not have to accept certs signed by that CA.

      Cookbook example, please, because I've already been told I'm stupid for not being able to find this information or figure it out for myself.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    97. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Did it install that particular cert, or did it install a root cert so that all other certs on that campus were pre-approved?

      I understand the OP's question pretty well. I've found it to be not so easy to make a private CA that lets you do enterprise deployment of private certs without having the end user (or even an admin with local access) accept the self-signed cert. I've put some honest effort into this task, and have never done it successfully.

      It was nice working at a company that was already in the root CA list in all the browsers, because our "internal" certs were already in the chain of trust :-)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    98. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I don't mind touching every desktop *once* since we deploy a standard configuration. What I don't enjoy is having to accept the self-signed cert every time a new one is created or one expires. I've always wanted to make a private "root CA". I would even go as far as to suggest that our enterprise root CA should be the *only* CA on the client systems, because in a real sense, nothing outside our facility should have "trusted" status in the first place.

      I've never managed to do it. I can self-sign certs, of course, no problem. I can make my own CA key/cert. I can install that CA as an authority in the browser. It doesn't work though. When I sign a new cert, the browser still complains. I've made an honest effort to figure out how to do this, and I came to this slashdot thread in hopes of finding out what I've missed, but even here people seem convinced that the task is so simple to be beneath consideration.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    99. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I suspect that a lot of people don't relate to the idea of an environment that's so big and dynamic that dealing with accepting self-signed certs is a problem, or that even the low-cost cert is too much... and I tend to agree mostly... but I also don't think most of the people who are convinced that it's really easy to make an internal CA and put that CA in your standard config and then deploy self-signed certs from that CA to your heart's content. But I don't see anyone actually showing how to do it... just links to the openSSL instructions that don't answer the hard part of the question.

      (We KNOW how to make a private CA and certs. We know how the browser is supposed to be configured to accept that CA globally, as opposed to per-cert. We try to do it, and it doesn't work.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    100. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      And how do you get a cert for a private domain name, or for a network that doesn't use DNS?
      If you do have a real name, what if your organization isn't functional enough to jump through the authentication hoops needed to get a cert? What if you just want the wire-level encryption provided by SSL but don't really need the third-party authentication elements? There are plenty of uses for self-signed certs and plenty of enterprises where it would be very desirable for clients to be pre-configured to accept (ONLY!) certs issued by that internal root CA. It's the client bit that turns out to be hard. And despite all the comments in this thread that diminish that difficulty, I didn't see anyone explaining how to do it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    101. Re:Private Certificate Authority by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      And how about an environment where you explicitly do NOT trust any certs that don't originate internally? Or where you don't even want a connection to the internet? Plenty of private networks don't even need DNS names, but could benefit from TLS even if a compromise is made on the host authentication part.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    102. Re:Private Certificate Authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i for one trust myself enough to be my CA

    103. Re:Private Certificate Authority by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Anybody with an over-room-temperature IQ not doing anything heavy is gonna have a local repo/AD setup to push the certificate and configuration across the enterprise.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. Wildcard cert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    *.internal.example.com

    1. Re:Wildcard Cert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go for a cheapie wildcard cert. That will cover all your intranet needs.

      +1

      Fortune 500

    2. Re:Wildcard Cert by psyclone · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Most organizations use an internal domain name (e.g. slash-corp.net), or a sub-domain of their primary domain (e.g. int.slashdot.org). So simply wildcard that domain, (*.int.slashdot.org) then use the same cert everywhere (dev1.int.slashdot.org, prod2.int.slashdot.org). You'll have to copy the private key with the cert, but then you only have one piece of data to manage.

      You can get a GeoTrust / VeriSign wildcard cert for 6 years. No browser / client modifications necessary.

  3. Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by schi0244 · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.startssl.com/
    An Israeli company with inexpensive SSL (and other certs). I would also point out the prices they have for Extended Validation SSL certs.

    1. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Whoa! Now if only there were a way to set up my website so all traffic would be encrypted so FireSheep attacks wouldn't work, that would be even better! Does anyone know how I could do that?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by yakatz · · Score: 1

      I use StartSSL for tens of certificates on all manner of internet and intranet sites.
      I had to install their root certificate on Windows 2000, but any computer that gets regular windows updates should have had it since last year.

      They don't charge for certificates, they charge for work a person has to do: verifications.
      Meaning, if they have to call you, it will cost, but you can get regular certificates for free.

    3. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      a proxy outside your network would work.
      it's not like firesheep is a new concept or anything, just a tool that makes it even easier to snoop than before.

    4. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Whoosh! Why not use an SSL certificate from StartSSL?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    5. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      i guess i should start assuming all stupid posts are meant to be sarcastic?

      to the overuse of whoosh!

    6. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      I use StartSSL for tens of certificates on all manner of internet and intranet sites. I had to install their root certificate on Windows 2000, but any computer that gets regular windows updates should have had it since last year.

      I'll jump on the StartSSL praise train, too. For $50/year, you get unlimited SSL certs for any domain you control, or personal authentication certs (i.e., e-mail) for any e-mail address you control. The certs can include wildcarding, multiple domains per cert, and lots of other features that other CAs charge an arm and a leg for.

      I noticed that I had to install their CA cert when I was using their completely free certs, but their class 2 certs were issued by a different CA that was already in IE and Firefox. Perhaps everything is there now by default, but I can't say for sure.

    7. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by heypete · · Score: 1

      They changed root certs several years ago. The new root is included in Firefox and many other browsers by default. See http://www.startssl.com/?app=40

      The cert doesn't come out-of-the-box with Windows, but the first time someone visits a site with a StartSSL-issued cert and a browser that uses the Windows cert store (IE, Chrome, etc.), Windows will check with Microsoft's online cert store and download the root. This takes a few seconds, but only needs to be done once. After it gets the root from Microsoft, it keeps it locally. This works fine for regular, internet-connected systems, but on a completely isolated intranet it may be problematic.

    8. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by SplunkDotNet · · Score: 1

      I'm going to hop on this one too StartSSL.com has been one of the best things I've ever found on the internets. I use it to secure all my websites internal and external. They are also setting up a Web Of Trust(WOT) to help build their community. If anyone in the Midwest needs me to Notaries them for the WOT I can do that. Just look me up at http://taddevries.startssl.com/

    9. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they also do a discount on the Stuxnet engine?

    10. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by heypete · · Score: 1

      Also, their free and paid certs are issued from different intermediate certificates that are chained back to the same root. Browsers have the root in their "trusted CA" list, but you, the server admin, need to supply the appropriate intermediate to complete the chain. They are available from http://www.startssl.com/certs/

      For example, if you're using a free, Class 1 server cert, you need to configure your server to supply both the server cert and the sub.class1.server.ca.crt intermediate certificate. If you're using a paid, Class 2 server cert, you need to supply the server cert and the sub.class2.server.ca.crt intermediate.

      Many CAs use such chained intermediate certs these days, so it's not uncommon.

    11. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by bastion_xx · · Score: 1

      Again, another fan of StartSSL. User of both server certs and client certs for personal and business use. Their cost model is much more inline with reality than Verisign or the others... Plus, EV certs if you need them.

    12. Re:Inexpensive 3rd Party Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people provide security for a living... right? Or am I missing something... I guess you get what you payed for.

  4. Why are you clicking through that box every time? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every browser has a way to store the security exceptions so that you don't get that warning every time. Just set the box up on a private network the first time to avoid a MitM attack and store the cert. If you ever get another warning about an untrusted cert from the box, then you might have a MitM attack going on, but otherwise if the cert matches you're fine.

    You could also set up your own local root authority (most larger companies do this) and make your own certs.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  5. Is free cheap enough? by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Informative
    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:Is free cheap enough? by miaDWZ · · Score: 1

      http://startssl.com/

      mod parent up - great service.

    2. Re:Is free cheap enough? by bradgoodman · · Score: 1
      I do not see "startssl" listed in the list of built-in root certificates under Firefox.

      Does this mean that if third-party users access my web site, they will be "stopped" with the typical warning that the site is secured with an unknown certificate - and make them go through the ususal steps to add it, etc?

      Or will it just "work". Will they get the nice colored emblum on the address bar saying "Verified by: startssl", etc?

      In otherwords - will it be any better, or more transparent to the user than they key I generated myself? Will it be automatically accepted by (let's say) an iPhone?

    3. Re:Is free cheap enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CA name for startssl is StartCom Ltd and its CA cert is installed in Firefox.

      The "nice" coloured emblem is shown if you have an extented verifivation (EV) SSL certificate - these cost money. The basic startssl certificate appears free of charge.

      So, no your users won't get a fancy green EV bar but they won't get the dire FF and Chrome SSL warning about non trusted CA.

    4. Re:Is free cheap enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently not, see this page: http://www.startssl.com/?app=40

      The only certificate that has the "Green Trustbar" ticked is the one for $150 with 2 years validity.

    5. Re:Is free cheap enough? by oracleguy01 · · Score: 1

      It is built into Firefox. StartSSL is where I get the SSL certificate I use for my SVN server, works great. I know the root certificate is in Firefox from at least 3.0 forward.

    6. Re:Is free cheap enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you are going for free what about something free, transparent and open source orientated.
      http://cacert.org

      These guys are working hard towards Firefox inclusion.
      Help is also surely appreciated.

    7. Re:Is free cheap enough? by heypete · · Score: 2, Informative

      If by "nice colored emblem", you mean the blue indicator next to the address bar and the padlock icon in the bottom-right, yes. It works fine. No scary warnings or anything. Such standard SSL certificates are fully trusted by Firefox, and are free of charge.

      If, however, you mean the green Extended Validation indicator next to the address bar, this also works fine, but costs a bit of money. Not a big deal.

      Either way, the browser will trust the cert without warnings.

      Yes, it will be more transparent to the user than using a self-signed certificate. Self-signed certificates present scary warnings, as they are not signed by a trusted CA. StartSSL-issued certs are trusted by many browsers. See http://www.startssl.com/?app=40

      StartSSL certs are accepted without warnings by Android and iPhone.

    8. Re:Is free cheap enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but you will find Startcom, owners of StartSSL.

      The answer to your question is yes, this will be transparent.

    9. Re:Is free cheap enough? by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that if third-party users access my web site, they will be "stopped" with the typical warning that the site is secured with an unknown certificate - and make them go through the ususal steps to add it, etc?

      You tell me.

      In all seriousness, if you install the certificate chain properly (just follow their instructions), you're fine. They verify you, then don't charge to verify the certs that are tied to you. Makes more sense to me.

    10. Re:Is free cheap enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could possibly go wrong?

    11. Re:Is free cheap enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starssl is fabulous for these purposes. I became a notary and enjoy securing most of all the stuff I do. You still have to have hostnames within real tld's and real domains though, but if your intranet sports a dns server you shouldn't have any problem with that if your services uses subdomains. If you feel adventurous you could even publish your internal ip's on your public dns, but I guess it's information that you'd rather keep to yourself...

      There is a bit of a process to become a Notary, especially if you are the first in your city and can't get notarized by anyone else, but my experience was that they are very fast and responsive to deal with the process. Maybe I was lucky since there are still very few of us. If any of you are in New York City, you'll find me as one of the Notaries. I'll be happy to meet and get things going. /Marco

    12. Re:Is free cheap enough? by psyclone · · Score: 1

      If you bothered to visit the site, they say:

      "StartSSL is the trade mark of the StartCom Certification Authority"

      Look for StartCom in your list; it is there. If you want the "green identity" on the address bar, you need an EV (extended validation) cert. Supported browser list at the bottom of the page.

      If you are using firefox, you should do this to make non-EV certs "stand out":
          about:config
          browser.identity.ssl_domain_display > 2

  6. Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Browsers should treat untrusted certs the same as unencrypted pages - they're at least as secure, possibly more secure than "trusted" certs.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not any more secure than trusted certificates because they're still prone to a man-in-the-middle due to lack of authentication. So you'll send information encrypted to the man-in-the-middle who will do whatever they want with it.

      Further, showing the padlock or any additional security information may instill a false sense of security in the user. "Oh, it's encrypted and safe!" as they send their login and password to paypal.com when someone has MitM'd the connection to PayPal.

    2. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, try again. SSL is intended not just to secure the exchange of application-level bits, but also to validate that the destination site you entered is the one you reached. This is done by having the server present a certificate, which the client can then verify was signed by one of many trusted authorities.

      Let's assume that browsers don't raise an alarm for untrusted certificates, as you propose. Let's further assume I can spoof ARP replies from your gateway, hijack your outbound connections to port 443, hijack your route to 1.2.3.0/24, or subvert your resolver functions for yourbank.com in any number of ways. Now, you go to https://yourbank.com/ and present your credentials. Guess what? I have them, and there's no warnings.

      That is why SSL authenticates the remote site. Encrypting the transport prevents eavesdropping, while authenticating the remote site prevents man-in-the-middle attacks. You need both to have any degree of security.

      Be thankful browser vendors have knowledgeable people to handle cryptography.

    3. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I go to an https page I want full security, I don't want to find out I'm browsing with a "half-padlock" icon without a warning. If you want half-security, it makes more sense to upgrade an http connection than to downgrade https, or maybe invent a 3rd prefix.

    4. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by AusIV · · Score: 1

      There absolutely needs to be some kind of warning for untrusted certs. I can see an argument that the current solution is overkill (I disagree), but treating it the same as an HTTP page gives users no easy way to check whether or not they should trust the connection.

      Now, I'm of the opinion that browsers handle untrusted certs as well as they can with current technology. Time and time again, end users have shown that they'll click through simple warning dialogs and send their data to phishers. When a server establishes an HTTPS connection with a client, it's telling the browser that this should be a secure communication, and sensitive data is going to be transmitted. If the browser can't validate that the connection is trusted, the user needs to know something is wrong.

    5. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is done by having the server present a certificate, which the client can then verify was signed by one of many trusted authorities.

      The only thing the "trusted authorites" confirm is that the person who has the cert paid for it.

      Some trust.

      The whole SSL certificate crap is a scam. The only interesting thing to know would be "is this site using the same certificate as the last time I connected to it". And the shitty browsers don't tell you that.

      (The protocol should also have some reasonable way of doing rollover, like presenting a new certificate in the session "this is what we're going to be using starting...").

      That is why SSL authenticates the remote site. Encrypting the transport prevents eavesdropping, while authenticating the remote site prevents man-in-the-middle attacks. You need both to have any degree of security.

      But they don't authenticate the remote site. They just check that the remote site has a certificate signed by one of those super trustworthy people like Verisign or the government of China.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing the "trusted authorites" confirm is that the person who has the cert paid for it.

      Some trust.

      Wow! I had no idea! You should pay for a certificate for CN=www.bankofamerica.com, then MITM patrons at a nearby public WiFi hotspot, get rich, and move to Argentina.

      But they don't authenticate the remote site. They just check that the remote site has a certificate signed by one of those super trustworthy people like Verisign or the government of China.

      CAs can made mistakes. Good thing none of the people designing cryptosystems rely on infallibility -- that's why the PKI includes a thing called "revocation lists".

      Also, turns out that in order to get your root trusted by vendors, you have to provide assurances. Policies from organizations such as Mozilla, Microsoft, and Apple are readily available. Feel free to make your own root, get it accepted everywhere, and take over Internet commerce.

      In conclusion: put up or shut up. In-browser SSL offers strong assurances. If you believe otherwise, then by all means, exploit it.

    7. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't know why I'm getting modded troll, or offtopic of all things, so let me clarify:

      Browsers should treat untrusted certs the same as unencrypted pages - they're at least as secure [as unencrypted pages], possibly more secure than "trusted" certs (such as me connecting to my home server with a self-signed cert, I can be certain no third parties, even governments, could illegally obtain the certificate and perform a MITM).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Time and time again, end users have shown that they'll click through simple warning dialogs and send their data to phishers. When a server establishes an HTTPS connection with a client, it's telling the browser that this should be a secure communication, and sensitive data is going to be transmitted. If the browser can't validate that the connection is trusted, the user needs to know something is wrong.

      That browser behavior is what needs to change. When accessing a site with an untrusted cert, the browser should act like it would with a plain HTTP connection. No padlock, no blue/green address bar, no indication of enhanced security, but no warning - maybe it could show a status bar icon, a padlock with an exclamation mark or something, as a little unobtrusive indication that the certificate is untrusted, but it shouldn't interfere with the browsing experience by stopping the page from loading and displaying DANGER WILL ROBINSON! CERTIFICATE NOT TRUSTED!

      And the user should act just like they do now - they shouldn't send critical private info without an indication of enhanced security.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a server establishes an HTTPS connection with a client, it's telling the browser that this should be a secure communication, and sensitive data is going to be transmitted. If the browser can't validate that the connection is trusted, the user needs to know something is wrong.

      My objection to this line of thinking, is that "sensitive data" isn't the server's call to make. The user is charge of deciding what is sensitive and what isn't, so it's their responsibility to decide when they care who they're giving it to, and when they don't care.

      Yes, I know most users will blow off that responsibility, but fuck those people, then. When users do think about it, the current approach of no warning for trusted HTTPS and no warning for untrusted unencrypted HTTP and a warning for untrusted HTTPS, doesn't make a lot of sense. The untrusted unencrypted HTTP is the worst case scenario, so any warnings untrusted HTTPS gives, should be there for HTTP too.

    10. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Tom · · Score: 1

      The only interesting thing to know would be "is this site using the same certificate as the last time I connected to it". And the shitty browsers don't tell you that.

      Perspectives does that, and then some.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The above is in no way plus 4 insightful. That poster has no clue what they speak of.

      "But they don't authenticate the remote site."
      Wrong: Browsers check that the certificate matches the domain that served it, and that the said certificate was issued by a trusted certificate authority. Without those steps, malicious sites would have to hijack DNS entries for target domains, and use either self-signed certificates or certificates signed by non-trusted CAs.

      "The protocol should also have some reasonable way of doing rollover"
      It does: Look up "SSL renegotiation"

      "is this site using the same certificate as the last time I connected to it"
      Learn how it works before speaking: A site can change its certificate at any time. In fact, some certificates are intentionally short-lived and are replaced frequently. So the bottom line question is "does it matter if the certificate presented is identical to the previous one for this site?" In truth, it doesn't. So the best thing for browsers to do to fit 99% of usage patterns it so validate the certificate for the given session against the know certificate authorities. And that's exactly what happens today.

      To call it all a scam while being so uninformed is.. well.. either from a naive kid, or typical internet trolling.

    12. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Why the above tripe was modded insightful is beyond me. Certificates are the oldest and most reliable way of anonymously verifying identity between sites or otherwise anonymous users.

      Nobody expects certificates to perform on the fly authentication. Authentication is performed before the certificate is issued, and thereafter one has the assurance that the certificate is being held by a previously authenticated authority. You might as well complain that authentication itself is a scam because it is not 100% reliable.

      Where the F have you been for the last 15 years, anyway? Essentially, you're making the ridiculous claim that assymetric public/private key based encryption is worthless, when it has been proven to be anything but.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    13. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Needs a Chrome extension. Used it extensively with Firefox, but no longer use Firefox =(

    14. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's pretty much what all the non-idiots have decided.

      About 10% of this site is in some delusional world where users might get 'tricked' by the fact it's https, but, gasp, unsigned...which totally ignores the actual fact that either users are smart enough to check for a padlock, or they have no damn idea what you're talking about and will trust any domain that claims to be anything.

      There's no middle ground of users, who are running around checking for 'https', and not noticing the lack of a padlock. And if that really was the damn problem, we could just invent that unsigned certs use 'httpe' or something instead, which would also be port 443 but not checked for signed certs, just use general encryption and store a hash of the key to compare to next time.

      But the goddamn standards are run by the signing companies, and they certainly don't want to make themselves useless. So instead of sites being 1% signed, 50% partially encrypted for non-critical, user stuff, and 49% unencrypted, we have them being 3% signed, and 97% unencrypted.

      Gives them three times as much business, renders half the goddamn internet insecure.

      There is, indeed, a middle ground for security. A place where username and passwords to forums get sent encrypted so people can't sniff them. A place where you can use the same cert on multiple domains so you don't need to waste an IP per-site. A place for moderately secure traffic, or intranets. The stuff now that either has no security, or a giant warning about self-signed certs.

      And the 10% of slashdot composed of total idiots on this issue about to start leaping in talking about 'a false sense of security is no security at all', which is also why you shouldn't lock your house unless you're using a bank vault door.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Sorry, to reply to myself, but my post was a little confusing and vindictive unless you remember the last time this comes up. Every time SSL certs are mentioned, people are 'I don't understand why self-signed HTTPS is treated worse than HTTP?' and everyone agrees until idiots show up to disagree for some utterly inane reason.

      Many of them are convinced, convinced, that self-signed certs are as insecure as no encryption, despite people constantly pointing out that sniffing and recording is a hell of a lot easier than intercepting and rewriting.

      There's really no reason the entire web shouldn't be encrypted. Signed certs for the important stuff, unsigned for everything else, your web browser keeping the cert hashes in your history, and even with an option to keep specific ones permanently.

      Of course, now with DNSSEC, signatures are utterly stupid to start with. HTTPS cert hashes should simply be listed in the DNS for a domain, tada, our work here is done, the end.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    16. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by initialE · · Score: 1

      Certificates expire. They do that because they can be brute-forced, given enough time and a big enough bot net. A cert that has not changed since the last time you connected may not be as secure as you think. And a cert that has changed due to expiry, change of provider, or any other reason is no indication that there is anything wrong either. I do agree that the authentication part is edgy though, seems that you have inadvertently farmed out the implicit trust - but not to the issuing authorities. You handed authority to Microsoft, the Mozilla foundation and Apple, because of whatever choices they decided to make as default in your browser. (You can be assured that a lot of money changes hands there)

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    17. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing the "trusted authorites" confirm is that the person who has the cert paid for it.

      Some trust.

      The whole SSL certificate crap is a scam. The only interesting thing to know would be "is this site using the same certificate as the last time I connected to it". And the shitty browsers don't tell you that.

      The WHOLE POINT is to physically distribute the public keys at some level in the chain, and air gap the highest private keys in the chain. Then each key, depending on level of trust gets changed periodically. The one at the top is physically delivered and verified with multiple people in each organization signing off on it.

      You're asking why web browsers don't do what SSH does?

      Because you don't know who someone is the first time you talk to them, install new trusted browser, use a different trusted computer, different trusted OS, etc. MITM

      Because unlike most people's SSH implementations, it really is a good idea/federal/industry requirement to change keys periodically. So when that happens, you're supposing that people should just accept the new key? Or should they have accepted the site's own self issuing CA, and supposing that IT doesn't ever change?

      You really need to understand how PKI & chains of trust work. Making someone's webserver the top in the chain of trust is really, really stupid, and yes, most people's enterprise SSH implementations are really really stupid.

      But they don't authenticate the remote site. They just check that the remote site has a certificate signed by one of those super trustworthy people like Verisign or the government of China.

      Yes they do. CA verifies that site owner owns URL, and establishes the first link in the chain of trust all the way to your browser.

    18. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Browsers should treat untrusted certs the same as unencrypted pages

      I agree. There's no difference between this behavior and if a MITM simply passes an encrypted site through unencrypted to the client. The problem is that most people don't know what should/shouldn't be protected with SSL. Those that do have come to expect that "https" automatically means "secure" all by itself. Trust industry MMMMONSTER FFAIL! That's what extended validation green bars are supposed to help. Once EV is widely adopted and expected, and not-green https loses its meaning, maybe browser vendors will stop nagging on unsecured sites? Maybe they could just not nag, then silently drop the 's' from https. Adopt a purple "not-secure" bar?? Anything is better than those freaking user hating SSL popups.

      - they're at least as secure, possibly more secure than "trusted" certs.

      and no, no they are not. How did you reach THAT conclusion?? Untrusted certs should be treated as unencrypted pages, exactly because they are as secure.. that is.. not secure at all.

    19. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      - they're at least as secure, possibly more secure than "trusted" certs.

      and no, no they are not. How did you reach THAT conclusion?? Untrusted certs should be treated as unencrypted pages, exactly because they are as secure.. that is.. not secure at all.

      There are certain situations where a self-signed, untrusted cert can be more secure than one generated by a third party:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1880524&cid=34319778

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re:Untrusted certs should not raise an alarm by Bengie · · Score: 1

      CA's should have to validate a business or home address, a phone number, a name, a bank-account that mirrors the supplied data and an ISP for the requested domain must also mirror supplied personal data.

      Payment must come from the above bank account and No PO boxes accepted.

      The CA would call the Bank and ISP and be like "We're calling to verify that you have a customer with this name with this registered address". The bank would also have the account number as part of the question, so name/address/account must match.

      For business class certs anyway.

      Browsers should warn for non-business class certs.

      This would cut down on certs being bought by anyone.

  7. Internal CA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If the machines are windows based and reside on a domain then Group Policies can push out these certs rather nicely.

    Even non-windows machines - you can script the certificate update via logon script. I do this in my own domain I have setup for issue reproduction purposes.

    It is rather simple.

  8. Set up your own CA. by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+set+up+a+certificate+authority Then distribute the *organization's* cert to all the servers and clients. If you have a few clients or don't get many that fast, just do it by hand. If you have hundreds of computers or lots of turnover, you should be running central config management anyway. MIT for example distributes an MIT cert. Presto, everything on campus is protected. It's partially a question of tradeoffs: sign a cert by a CA already trusted for $$, or make your own CA and spend labor (your or users) dealing with adding the certs by hand. It's also a question of security of the CA. Perhaps some Slashdotters could share links to best practices for an internal CA.

  9. No valid certificates, but a CA. by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

    At home, I simply am my own CA, which really isn't all that hard. You just need to deploy the CA public certificate to the clients and you'll never get the warning. Now, depending on the "applicances" you might be able to replace the certificate with one you signed with your own CA, but I've never tried it.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  10. New root certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Create a new root for your company, and then install it on all of your workstations by default. Then you can create as many valid SSL certificates as you want.

  11. cost neutral by digitaldc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I wish anything was cost neutral, but nothing is free

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  12. Solution for windows and IE by daniel_zy · · Score: 2, Informative

    On window the list of CA on the machine can be centraly maneged...

  13. Working at a library.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would download the spreadsheet of my schedule every couple weeks or so. They didn't have their certificate up to date (i can't remember if it was self signed or just out of date, actually). For some strange reason, it appeared that the campus network I used in my dorm wouldn't allow me to download things from an https site that had a bad cert, though I could still browse around and such.

    The cert issue never got fixed. I sent an email to IT, they said "Well, we ordered the cert, we just haven't gotten it yet.." My supervisor even brought it up during a meeting.. nothing happened.

    Not quite so surprisingly, several months after I no longer worked there, my email account was still active. I waited around for a while to see if they'd get rid of it, and ended up sending a "thought you should know.. I gotz email" email to my supervisor, and they got rid of my account a week or so after.

  14. Good solution. by jaygatsby27 · · Score: 1

    Thats the best solution. It's not that complicated, either. Godaddy has cheaper serts as well, if that's not an option.

  15. $400/year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I am sure some vendors will take $400/year, there are many which charge far less (and have their root in all the usual browsers). Paying more does not get you more. And if you have a lot of internal appliances, a wildcard cert for the appliances/organization may be the most cost effective (a cert for *.appliance.example.com which can be applied to all the devices)

  16. Wildcard certificates. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to avoid managing your own CA an alternative is to spend a few more bucks on your "real world" certificate and get a "wildcard certificate" valid for all hosts on your domain and use that internally (including proper dns if you don't already have that on your internal network). //fatal

  17. Are you seriously that dense? by apparently · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTFP: "Any cost-neutral, or at least cost-conscious solutions out there that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company? Thanks." Before snarking on the FP author, perhaps you should actually read the FP's question?

    So a login script (or in a Microsoft environment, an AD group policy) that distributes the certificate automatically to each computer meets your definition of "manual distribution?"
    Really? That's what you're saying? "Automatic" and "manual" are synonyms in your universe? wow.

  18. Why does this always get marked troll? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I've seen similar comments get marked troll before. Yet for many websites, the direction of trust is from them to you. If you want to log in to my website, which provides information, I store no personal information other than a user name and password. I have to trust you before giving you the information you want.

    What we actually have here is a psychological issue - the cert vendors want you to believe that anyone who doesn't buy their certs is a potential criminal. The rule should simply be "no financial transactions or personal data on a site without an entrusted cert".

    Other than common sense, there is nothing to stop me posting my credit card details on Slashdot. If I log into a public forum using HTTPS, I still have no protection against my own stupidity if I do that. Now, without simply modding this troll, can anybody give a coherent explanation as to why browsers shouldn't assess self-signed certs according to their origin - within the intranet, valid server name - rather than treating selfcert.ru the same as selfcert.10.0.0.1?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Why does this always get marked troll? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      The rule should simply be "no financial transactions or personal data on a site without an entrusted cert".

      But do you trust some random idiot who paid some money to Verisign?

      Do Verisign promise to reimburse you if the person they sold a cert to turns out to be a crook?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:Why does this always get marked troll? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I've seen similar comments get marked troll before.

      Because it's retarded.

    3. Re:Why does this always get marked troll? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      But do you trust some random idiot who paid some money to Verisign?

      No, but I trust them a lot more than an unsigned certificate that says 'I really am your bank, honest'.

    4. Re:Why does this always get marked troll? by Matheus · · Score: 1

      I don't believe so BUT what they are selling is a certain lack of online anonymity. If the person they sold the cert to IS a crook then you now know where to find them.

      Anyway... my favorite thing to talk about these days: Being that I work for a company in the business of selling security you get a pretty clear picture very fast that all security is a false sense of security. At that point you can either go hide yourself in a bunker somewhere in your tin-foil hat OR you can come to terms. Given my choice of the latter I get fairly annoyed with people who get upset when their false sense of security isn't holding up. (Especially when they start adding more layers of false security that make my life more difficult)

      Sad state of our times when people are ever eager to give up their freedoms in exchange for a poorly orchestrated illusion.

    5. Re:Why does this always get marked troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes please inherently trust rfc1918 addressed hosts with self signed certs. Then my next bot will run a small web proxy with a self-signed cert :)

    6. Re:Why does this always get marked troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be stupid.. unless you don't have a *clue* how HTTPS works.

      A self-signed certificate signed by untrusted CA is indistinguishable from an intercepted communication.

      you ---- (self-signed-cert) ---- eavesdropper ---- (EV cert) --- paypal.com

      Then you look, and say, hey, it's https://paypal.com, but it ain't. The warning is the only method to indicate to the user that the encrypted communication is possibly compromised.

      Of course, this can happen too,

      you --- (EV cert) ---- gov't eavesdropper --- (EV cert) --- paypal.com

      all that is required is CA certificate to sign gov't requested cert for a site. The *safest* approach is,

      you --- (private cert) --- website

      where the certificate is shared by secure means AND you do not trust a 3rd party CA, ever. Private cert is another name for self-signed certificate.

      So, is that clear enough?

  19. Wait, this is an issue? by dagard · · Score: 1

    We just use the same wildcard certificate that we use for our external sites. *.domain.com, works wonders.

  20. PKI in a web page by rich_salz · · Score: 2, Informative

    You might find my "PKI in a web page" useful. It doesn't require sending all certs to all browsers, just the one internal CA cert and includes step-by-step screenshots on how to do that. See https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/soma/entry/a_pki_in_a_web_page10?lang=en

  21. OpenCA by ymenager · · Score: 1

    http://www.ejbca.org

    Open source, full featured

  22. Cheaper service. by daid303 · · Score: 1

    Find a cheaper service. We payed something like 500 euros for a 5 year SSL certificate.

  23. D'oh! Stupid Useless PKI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PKI is useless for any purpose other than protecting transmitted data from the eyes of technologically ignorant and unmotivated bystanders. It all rests on the trust of a third party, and there's no way to know if the third party is competent (usually not), or if the "trusted" host on the other end is a ruse. The host from which the user is initiating the connection is likely to be even *less* trustworthy, as is the user him/herself, since this person ultimately approves the trust of a certificate on the basis of zero knowledge of what is being approved or the consequences.

  24. OpenSSL and Automated Deployment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > do you have valid SSL certificates on your intranet sites

    Yes.

    > if so what do you use?

    OpenSSL

    > don't involve manually distributing your certificates
    > and CRL to every workstation in the company?

    WDS, PXE, ZCM, etc. Your automated workstation deployment process should have been worked out before you began the intranet SSL certificate project. Go back and finish that part first. Everything after will be so much simpler.

  25. ssh tunnel by bl8n8r · · Score: 0, Troll

    ssh -L 8888:localhost:80 frooboz@appliance.onmylan.net
    firefox http://localhost:8888/

    You *are* buying only *nix based appliances, right?

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:ssh tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      PuTTY FTW.

    2. Re:ssh tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is the right answer to the question as asked, with the addition that he should block access to that appliance either by limiting it's service to localhost, or by creating some kind of dmz around it.

      Maybe he should use another appliance to shield his appliance

  26. Wildcard Cert by Kagato · · Score: 1

    Go for a cheapie wildcard cert. That will cover all your intranet needs.

  27. A private server? by kimvette · · Score: 1

    For a private (e.g., not ecommerce, banking, etc.) web site, just create a certificate authority and use self-signed certificates, and send an email to the users covering the installation of private certs in MSIE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Don't waste your money on a versign cert because all it does is eliminate the warning for a price, whereas your users can eliminate it for free. Why add the tracking of additional "licensing" fees to your workload?

    If it's public-facing then by all means buy the cert to ease support costs, but for employee use this is a deployment and documentation issue.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:A private server? by GNU(slash)Nickname · · Score: 1

      ... just create a certificate authority and use self-signed certificates, and send an email to the users covering the installation of private certs in MSIE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Don't waste your money on a versign cert because all it does is eliminate the warning for a price, whereas your users can eliminate it for free.

      Seriously? Let's assume an organization with only 100 employees. If just 10% of them require help setting this up, at say 15 minutes user time lost buggering around, plus 15 minutes support from the helpdesk, then you've lost 4.5 hours of total productivity. That covers the cost of a wildcard cert for your internal domains for a year. (Maybe not from Verisign, but certainly from someplace sane.)

      Of course, in the real world, at least half of the users won't bother installing the cert, leaving them vulnerable anyway. So the real question is, how does one force the installation of the organizational CA into the trusted store, assuming that we are talking about the installed base and not the new rollouts?

      To the poster who suggested AD and group policies, that would work great in a homogeneous Windows environment. Those a very few and far between nowadays - let me know when that GPO works on the ipad.

  28. Wildcard Certificate Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We actually use an internal CA, and push our trusted certificates out via Active Directory group policies, but for the web interfaces we wanted to use an "official" certificate so that it would work for thinks like mobile phones, etc, without warnings, so we purchased a wildcard SSL certificate and use that same certificate for almost all of our "internal" SSL sites. We purchased a 10yr certificate from GoDaddy for right at $1000, so we figured 100/yr was pretty "price conscious". When we first purchase (about 3 years ago) the GoDaddy certificate had a few issues with some older browsers (wasn't trusted) but is a non-issue with all current browsers. You can always buy a wildcard from one of the more established issuers, but they're a lot more expensive (I think even GoDaddy is more expensive now, something like $800 for a 5 yr wildcard, but still pretty good).

  29. Seriously? Do your own job. by spydum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Judging by plenty of the comments in threads similar to this, I think most of us are tired of seeing Ask Slashdot posts on how to do his or her job. Had this been really cutting edge, or new grounds, I could understand. However.. Enterprise PKI? Seriously? If this is to be the continuing trend of Ask Slashdot, I need to adjust my filters.. because that is just sad.

    I'm finding more and more IT folks are standing around waiting to be spoon-fed solutions, instead of trying to research and educate themselves on what is already out there. It worries me that this is not just the trend in IT, but across all occupations. Am I just getting old and crotchety, or is this a new trend?

    1. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by rainer_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the "I'm feeling lucky" google-fed generation.
      If it's not on the first page in google results, go and ask in a forum.
      Though, that's actually old-school, sort-of - people tend to ask in their twitter feed nowadays...

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    2. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its a new trend I think, fed by the chorus from management that "IT is easy" - so they find cheap talent who live by Googling answers. Nobody designs anything anymore.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    3. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Aggrav8d · · Score: 1

      Worse than crotchety.
      You're chastising someone for using every method at their disposal to learn what they need to know, while telling them they need to go figure it out for themselves.
      Your answer is akin to saying "I have enough time to answer you and yet I don't want to help you."
      Do you advocate building your own car instead of taking public transit?

      Besides! All those spoon-fed tools will need your $250/hr consultation expertise when things go wonky, right? More experts means less money in your pocket. You're poopooing a great opportunity, here.

    4. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I learned a long time ago never to submit a question to Ask Slashdot because even if it is something obscure and arcane, people will gang up on me and call me stupid for not knowing it.

    5. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to do with the overall industry trend, and trending of personnel. As older people, well, get older, they retire or move on. Some companies tend to hire younger, less experienced individuals. Coincidentally, some management types still think others can learn IT, so they throw a person with non-IT understandings into a position that requires more.

      I both agree and disagree with your opinion - I don't want to see these posts either, however, slashdot is pretty much a standard in IT information, so there should probably be a "beginners" area for these types of questions.

      One gem I did take away from this is hearing about startssl.com - so I wouldn't discount it entirely.

    6. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

      Next on Ask Slashdot: "In the enterprise, what is the easiest way to get spoon-fed solutions without driving away the old, crotchety guys who know the answers?"

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    7. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by MztrBlack · · Score: 1

      Expenditure of effort aside, I'm curious--does learning in your world NOT involve asking questions of those with deeper knowledge/understanding?

    8. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off my lawn?

      Seriously though, grow up. There are always some slackers, and usually they're pretty annoying. But they're not going up in numbers, you're just getting older and found a new way to feel superior. When you pass your early-middle-age-superiority-phase, you'll realize things stay pretty much the same.

    9. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, this questioned interested me. I'm not in enterprise or have a job in IT. I'm always wondered why companies haven't come up with a sane solution to have secure logins on most home based router solutions or even small business solutions. I then usually install Tomato or something, but it is a weird situation to have an unsecure login, particular when you see adaptations in security in other areas such as WiFi.

      So while you are all patting yourself on the back about how great you are at your job, which I could care less about especially with your arrogance, how great the solutions are out there when there seems to be situations where equipment and mentalities haven't changed to solve them. It seems your solutions really aren't that great; they're simply manageable...for people like you to get paid. Which I think hints at the real crux of the matter--you don't want this solved, because then you'd be out a resume qualification.

      Second, to go even further, because you didn't offer a solution, you come off as someone who doesn't understand the question, and is lashing out to cover up your lack of understanding. In fact, having read the thread, most people don't seem to really understand the question, or put up a solid solution in the mindset of the Ask A

      Third, let's pretend your competent--it's a sad day when /. probably got you to your level, and now you badmouth /. because it hasn't advanced despite you doing so. You're saying you've never learned ANYTHING from an Ask Slashdot? Ever? Then why are you here? I've read /. articles on advanced stories, which I yawn at because of my field (molecular genetics and bioengineering), particular the home based DNA "hacker" labs.

      Remember your asshole comments whenever you're in a field asking...wait, paying, for someone else's expertise and you find yourself complaining at the cost.

      Remember too, this is /. I figure if there was an Ask Slashdot question on how to build a mass spectrometer looking for an open source solution to handle the math for ion paths in relation to the charges and rod placement, there would at least one post from some EU or US national lab domain bitching about how simple Ask Slashdot was and how it's degraded since it's an understood solution and people just want an easy way to do a design/their job, and someone other fucker complaining the poster should learn it on his own and build the gear and code himself.

      All while offering no links or posts of true relevance.

    10. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by goldspider · · Score: 1

      "I'm finding more and more IT folks are standing around waiting to be spoon-fed solutions, instead of trying to research and educate themselves on what is already out there."

      You mean "research" like asking questions to a knowledgeable community?

      "Am I just getting old and crotchety, or is this a new trend?"

      There's nothing new about obtuseness for its own sake, especially in the IT world. If you won't contribute anything constructive or helpful, please save yourself the effort entirely.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    11. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 1

      It's not really googling answers that's the problem.

      It's that people are working jobs that they have no passion for.

      When you love what you do, you want to always learn more. I've worked IT for a small company and googled a lot. I winged a lot of the job using google.. but I didn't google for forums or quick answers. I would educate myself. I would teach myself using the wealth of resources available on the internet and find I'd be able to get anything done if I put my mind to it. For the few odds and ends I needed help with, I asked, but I would always be so passionate when I was learning something new that once I saw the actual answer, I had to dig deeper to see WHY it was the answer and how it related to everything else.

      Whatever happened to the drive in geeks? We used to sit in garages for weeks on end soldering non-printed circuit boards and simple logic devices just to make advanced calculators.... now people just want the quick way out.

      --
      Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    12. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some severely down-sized companies (like mine) canned the IT people. Now someone who's not trained in IT (like me) has to figure how to get rid of the scary "There is a problem with this website's security certificate" message that the CEO is complaining about. Thanks for providing answers, Slashdot!

    13. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by srollyson · · Score: 1

      I posit that there is a silent majority of people that are interested in seeing this sort of Ask Slashdot post. The answer may seem obvious but that doesn't negate the value of the discussion. It is almost inevitable that someone will post a unique solution that many people had not considered. That's what we, the silent majority, are here for.

    14. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so bad about googling answers? If it wasn't for google, I don't know if I ever learned a damn thing about Linux.

    15. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by talkingpie · · Score: 1

      IT folk my age (twenties) know bugger all about computers. And yet I see them, slowly taking up the reigns of the industry. What annoys me most is that they are increasingly not the people who figure it out for themselves and who can learn by doing, but those who take classes and get their precious little degree; they're making mistakes on a grand scale that they should have learnt to avoid in literally their first class. I should feel old making complaints like this, but really I just feel anger that what is common sense for me is out of the realms of the expertise of most of my contemporaries. Bloody stupid kids.

    16. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, especially with this question. This is far from my area of expertise, but when I was setting up a server for svn and bugzilla, I had a hankering that there would be a free way to make and sign my own certificates (it is a server set up that has fewer than 20 people access it, so justified in my opinion to do it this way), and it only took about 5 minutes to prove it. If I, in my near ignorance on this subject, was able to get this, surely someone who is supposed to be getting paid to do this kind of stuff could have figured it out.

    17. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by talkingpie · · Score: 1

      I find that the 'spoon-fed solutions' are .reg files users can run, commands they can enter into the terminal or a batch of settings they can change. The important fact is that an alarming number of people don't want to learn how and why those actions fix the problem; they just want it fixed. What happens when the company's internet connection goes down and they can't get to the site from their browser history to read the instructions again? If I Google something or find a ready-made fix, I'll examine it both to find out how/why it works and also to ensure it's not going to do something malicious. That is why these IT folk are a plague; they have no desire to understand what they are doing so they will make mistakes and can be easily manipulated into doing something that they shouldn't.

    18. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      You should post that as your own "Ask Slashdot" question.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    19. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Thomasje · · Score: 1

      Am I just getting old and crotchety, or is this a new trend?

      It is just you getting old and crotchety. I speak as someone to whom this is also happening, FWIW.
      People are always complaining about the youth of today, mostly because they reach a point where they no longer remember what it was like when they were young themselves, when it was them annoying their elders with their questions. At my job, I am regarded as a guru now, but in the past I did my share of asking questions, too, some of them perceptive, some of them lazy or stupid. At some point you transition to being a person who answers them, and at that point it behooves a good citizen to be patient with the youngsters and return the favor to society.
      In other words, relax. Civilization is not collapsing just yet.

    20. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Spad · · Score: 1

      Nothing, as long as you know enough to interpret them correctly, otherwise you've got a load of instructions that are meaningless to you so that when, inevitably, something that isn't explicitly listed happens, you have no idea how to proceed and have to Ask Slashdot.

      Seriously, read through a few support forums and see how many threads go like this:

      User: How do I do X?
      Response: Install Y, Configure it for Z, Run Q
      User: How do I configure it for Z?
      Response: It's in the advanced settings under "Z"
      User: Mine doesn't have "Z", it's only got "z", what should I do?

      And so on. So many "IT" people are incapable of lateral thinking and basic troubleshooting that it frankly scares me; the first time they come across something they haven't seen before they panic and decide that they need someone else to tell them exactly how to fix it.

    21. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by chaosmind · · Score: 1

      I think you're getting old and crotchety. In my day, you'd start doing your research and educating yourself through USENET groups. Then #freenode on IRC. Why do you deem Ask Slashdot an inappropriate place to begin a geek's self-education?

      Where else, then, should one begin? Google is a corporate entity with advertiser influence and paid links (*cough* do no evil *cough*), and frequently the offerings on faqs.org are anemic or out-of-date.

      Maybe some enterprising geeks could comb through the most commented Ask Slashdot postings, cull the best of the 5-scored postings and summarize them into a BBS-style Ask Slashdot FAQ. (This is a good place to learn; let's not flame those with questions beneath our current, personal level of knowledge, hmm?)

      just my .02

    22. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Strangely, these forum posts asking "How to do X" usually end up on the first page of Google results, thereby generating a causal loop in space-time itself which will ultimately expand to encompass the entire solar system. Then the universe blows up. Or something like that.

    23. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by mikemcc · · Score: 1

      Am I just getting old and crotchety, or is this a new trend?

      Speaking as someone old and crotchety myself, I respectfully suggest that it's not an either/or question.

    24. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by finity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I remember the same sort of stuff from Usenet - where do they think RTFM came from? This question isn't even bad.

    25. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a generational thing, some people know how to research and others cannot. This hasn't changed despite the proliferation of different research tools.

    26. Re:Seriously? Do your own job. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I had 4 CIS classes that touched on certs. Intro to computer security, network security, web security, server security. We actually had to do our own public/private key math using excel for the large numbers for a few exercises. Teacher also had all her emails assignment PGP signed and sometimes encrypted. A few times she tried to pull a fast one on us and messed with the signature on purpose as to invalidate it. She's send us an assignment with an invalid signature, and if you did the assignment, she'd be like "Well, I didn't send it".

      Shouldn't people running a dept know basics in their fields? Ma'b this person is working at one of those jobs where they have you do everything. "IT" is like that person who does everything. make a database, setup our network, and manage our servers, design a webpage...etc..

      OP should be asking for a raise if that's the case or at least some paid education in those fields.

  30. Re:Why are you clicking through that box every tim by KevMar · · Score: 1

    Check the name on the cert. if it is self signed, then you just have to deal with it. But if it is root signed, look at the site name. If you can find a way to use that site address to access the device then you will not get prompted.

    My home router has a valid cert, but I would use the ip address and get prompted every time. I ended up making an entry in my host file for "linksys" at that address. Now when I go to https://linksys/ everything is ok.

    At the end of the day, remember the whole reason these devices use SSL is not so you can verify the connection. They use it to encrypt the connection. It is so much better to use SSL instead of plain text, even though the cert is not root signed.

    --
    Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
  31. Re:Why are you clicking through that box every tim by jdew · · Score: 2

    HP lights out boards don't retain the self generated cert between power failures. So when power returns you get a different cert, and the exception now needs to be removed and readded.

  32. Why not try an OpenSource PKI: Dogtag for Fedora by tanawts · · Score: 1
  33. $126/year wild card or 10$/yr individual certs by almondo · · Score: 1

    I do deploy them but I do avoid getting robbed by Verisign for these and other certs by shopping around.

    Currently I pay around $10 a year for individual host certs, and $126 a year for wildcards.
    http://www.namecheap.com/learn/other-services/ssl-certificates.asp

    If you have a large number of street facing certs the wildcard is the most cost effective solution anyway but for lower volumes I use individual certs as well.

    It has some cost but the reduction in uninformed user headaches is well worth it.

  34. EJBCA by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    http://ejbca.sf.net/

    In it's easiest form (everything on one host), it should be easy enough to implement.

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  35. Troll Tuesday hits Ask Slashdot! by peacefinder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Congratulations on getting your story accepted to the front page!

    Dozens of man-hours will now be spent explaining basics of inhouse certificate authorities and self-signing, along with comments on your lack of basic research, intelligence, qualification for your position, and legitimate parentage.

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  36. Great point, but... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So a login script (or in a Microsoft environment, an AD group policy) that distributes the certificate automatically to each computer meets your definition of "manual distribution?" Really? That's what you're saying? "Automatic" and "manual" are synonyms in your universe? wow." - by apparently (756613) on Tuesday November 23, @10:57AM (#34318338)

    Per my subject-line, to you? "CORRECTAMUNDO", I agree - those are the EASIEST/SIMPLEST ways to make sure updates/modifications to workstations/servers (nodes on a LAN/WAN) get the changes "automagically"...

    LOL! I also took a look @ your post history, and you made me laugh (but, sometimes, not in a good way) - you've got to chill with the "ribbing" & name-tossing etc./et al - you don't NEED to be doing it (well, unless you're attacked that way first I figure).

    You've also got to realize that a good # of folks here are NOT experienced network engineers, & many are QUITE "*NIX-centric" also, & don't realize all the "tricks"...

    (Yes, I know: /. has a "rep" for having some of the "best & brightest" hanging around on it etc., but, personally? Well of the attendees here, I only give that distinction to a RARE few here (like John Carmack for example, he does post here on occasion) & yes, they've driven me to "ribbing" here before too, but, I try to only do so when someone does that to me, first. LOL, justifying it? Sure!).

    APK

    P.S.=> All in all, good post on your end though - & remember: You don't have to toss names or "rib" on those who make posts that may come off as "dumb" to you... it only makes you look bad (unless THEY did so to YOU, first - the exception in my book @ least), because the person you posted to may just not be aware of certain things is all! Other than that? Great post/great point... someone mod apparently up... apk

  37. Lose that constraint; it's holding you back by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    ..that don't involve manually distributing your certificates and CRL to every workstation in the company?

    Here's where you went wrong. If you insist on keeping this constraint at any cost, then you have lost. Pay that cost (you don't get to have intranet sites) instead of getting what you want, and accept that you got the lesser of two "evils" (from a very perverted point of view).

    The main problem with looking at it that way, is that you (or someone) already did what you claim you want to avoid. Those workstations don't just magically trust Verisign utterly and completely as an introducer while not trusting you a bit. They trust Verisign and not you, because web browsers got installed on them, with preferences configured to to that (and Verisign's business model is to count on people being lazy and keeping those settings). Go ahead and set up your company CA, then bite the bullet and tell all your workstations to believe it (instead of seeking to avoid this step) and get it over with.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  38. *.yourcompany.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a certificate for *.yourcompany.com and put each appliance under a subdomain of yourcompany.com, ie: firewall.yourcompany.com.

  39. We are using this for our intranet sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.instantssl.com/ssl-certificate-products/ssl/ssl-certificate-intranetssl.html

  40. We use in-house generated ones. by Krojack · · Score: 1

    We have a pretty small employee base, about 35 people and several rotate in and out all the time in the sales dept. I choose to use an self signed cert for our site. Mainly to help if that odd ball virus got on a computer. I require everyone to use Firefox and with that you have the option to accept the cert and not deal with anymore annoying popups.

  41. non-domain URLs by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem is in off-the-shelf appliances (like wifi routers) for the whole spectrum (from personal to enterprise); they don't have domain names, so you can't have an internal CA root blessing them (at least, not out of the box), and a non-enterprise location can't easily do that.

    One solution could be to bundle a CA root into the router. Initial setup would involve picking an internal TLD (with a randomly generated suggestion so we don't have everybody using "home" or "linksys"), then the CA root certificate is generated for that TLD. New appliances would have to somehow register with that CA, and for proper security, this would have to be approved by the human setting it up, but this could conceivably be streamlined.

    I'm actually surprised this problem isn't solved via workaround; properly-encrypted wifi doesn't really need SSL (though a MitM attack is possible for the first connection since the AP MAC isn't yet known), and everything seems to be moving to wifi.

    I'd also like to see an extension to USB Mass Storage devices that puts a tiny CGI-enabled web browser in the "filesystem" that enables configuration. Since you're plugged in, security is easier.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  42. Try $40 by sherriw · · Score: 1

    $400 is the price of name recognition. I use GoDaddy certs and they are 1/10 the cost. All you need for any purpose.

    For some of my stuff I use the shared cert that my host provides. Still secure but throws that bloody warning. At least firefox let's me permantely store the certificate exception.

    1. Re:Try $40 by heypete · · Score: 1

      GoDaddy certs are also available for ~$13/year. Search for "godaddy ssl" on Google with AdBlock turned off, and there are ads on the side for the promotion.

      Direct link with their promotional code: http://www.godaddy.com/Compare/gdcompare_ssl.aspx?isc=sslqgo024c

      Disclaimer: I have no connection, financial or otherwise, with GoDaddy or the Google ads. As far as I can tell, the ads are run by GoDaddy themselves. This is not part of any referral program, and I receive nothing in exchange for the link above.

    2. Re:Try $40 by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      And StartSSL is free: https://www.startssl.com/?app=39

  43. Stupid pricing.. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    First, $400 is a stupid price to pay for an SSL cert, many providers are much cheaper...

    Some cert providers (Eg startcom) will provide unlimited certs under a particular domain, so assuming you use the same domain internally its quite easy to generate more certs for the same price you paid for your external certs.

    On the other hand, if its internal to your network why don't you create an internal certificate authority and just ensure its root cert is trusted by all your devices.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  44. I find this browser behavior annoying. by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    Surfing without encryption opens you up to eavesdropping and spoofing.

    Surfing with encryption protects you from eavesdropping and spoofing.

    Surfing with a self-signed encryption protects you from eavesdropping, but not spoofing, since you don't know who the signer is.

    Yet, Firefox treats self-signed certificates as if they were worse than no encryption at all. The default behavior should be to treat self-signed certificates as if there was no encryption at all (from a user perspective). To give users these dire warnings, when in fact they are better protected, is just silly.

    1. Re:I find this browser behavior annoying. by lavagolemking · · Score: 1

      What people often fail to realize is if you lose one, you inherently lose the other. If someone is impersonating the server you wish to connect to (called a man-in-the-middle attack), then they can see everything you're doing because it's encrypted with their key.

  45. Simple Internal Cert Server by TMYates · · Score: 1

    Personally, I find using the Windows Server Certificate Authority to be great for internal sites. The reason is that it automatically pushes the root cert trust to all domain members. It is also very easy to do a CSR to the internal cert server from IIS. Since you have to still do a CSR no matter how you do your "trusted" cert, going this route can be fairly painless. The other benefit is you can then use your internal cert server for other purposes such as company email signing, encryption, etc... You can also use OpenSSL, but it may take a little more to configure, but it is free. If you have a domain controller, you can just tag on the cert authority too if you are limited on Windows Licensing or hardware.

  46. long hold out by WarlockSquire · · Score: 1

    we held out for a very long time, as a non-profit academic institute that didn't want to pay for certs...
    The final straw was iPhones and the like, not only NOT talking to our self-signed IMAP-SSL server, but not even complaining why... (in fact, they say everything is fine, but never retrieve the mail...) The mail app doesn't even give you opportunity to accept the cert.

    yeah, you can post your cert as a file on a webserver, and point safari to it, and explicitly add it as a profile... but that didn't seem to be a long term viable solution.
    so, we finally purchased a wildcard cert. I hate paying the money, but it did fix our "problems".

  47. OmniRoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://cybertrust.omniroot.com

    Setup your own CA & have them trust your CA to issue certificates. GTE CyberTrust is trusted by default in most OSs

  48. Re:Why are you clicking through that box every tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would you recommend when the large "company" (over 100,000 employees) says that they don't want to run a CA as its too much of a liability and instead signs a deal getting SSL certificates for $100 a pop. Its always seemed rather ridiculous, but that's we have take it or leave it, Since the $100 a pop comes from a local budget, we typically leave it as we can't justify $100 per device.

  49. Share the wisdom of Slashdot. by QuincyDurant · · Score: 0, Troll
    As owner of a small business, I am responsible for our IT. I am only 9% competent, and that's giving myself all the best of it. Still, I have to do it because there is neither anyone else available, nor can we afford to hire anyone. I glean what I am able to understand from slashdot.
    Thank you, LostOne, for your generosity of spirit and helpfulness. And thank you, wiedzmin, for having the guts to ask this bunch for help. If you accept this relatively easy advice, your users will thank you too.

    And to those of you here who claim "half a brain": please remember that you yourselves may someday need to do something (legal, financial, educational, even technical) for which you are less than half competent. Yes, you have achieved a "win" in humilating a sincere poster, but it's the cheap victory enjoyed only by the pusillanimous.

    1. Re:Share the wisdom of Slashdot. by rjstanford · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And to those of you here who claim "half a brain": please remember that you yourselves may someday need to do something (legal, financial, educational, even technical) for which you are less than half competent. Yes, you have achieved a "win" in humilating a sincere poster, but it's the cheap victory enjoyed only by the pusillanimous.

      Here's the deal. Either this person is administering a smallish number of machines, in which case he/she can simply go 'round and install certificates on all of them, or they're administering an assload of them, in which case they do indeed deserve the scorn for not being willing to do a modicum of research and choose the standard approach.

      Your defense only works if they're in charge of too many machines to administer manually, but yet have no experience doing so - a situation which is highly unlikely. It might be a temporary situation due to turnover, but in that case they shouldn't be implementing a "convenience" feature like this one themselves.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  50. I am Royale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do as the military does. Build an installer to install all of the necessary certs needed. Deploy to your workstations from there. It's not hard and you don't force your users into bad practices. Or write a script to renew/revoke certs during the login or startup procedures. You could even build a cross platform solution fairly quick. The entire process shouldnt take more than a couple hours to build and implement. I'd do it for you, but you can't afford it.

  51. Set up your own CA by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    If it's an enterprise using domains, set up your own CA and create your own CA signing certificate. Push that certificate out into the root certificate bundle or database for your browsers etc., and use it to sign all your server certificates. Since browsers can validate your server certificates, they won't complain. Have the certificate available for importing into browsers that don't accept automatic pushes. That should solve the problem, at least internally.

  52. Re:Why are you clicking through that box every tim by jandrese · · Score: 1

    I don't know about your corporate policies, but if the main IT department doesn't want to deal with it, you could set up your own root cert for your department and just use that. Presumably you have a bit of internal server space somewhere that you could host it on. They're not really that hard to set up, there are a lot of tutorial online that will help you.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  53. Wildcard certificate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At our site we had about 300 Apache named virtual hosts, 50 hardware appliances, and various other bits lying around. We bought a wildcard SSL certificate (since they were all in the same domain) and as it was for intranet use negotiated the license for additional uses down to a few dollars per separate machine. The vhosts were shared over a half-dozen machines, so in total we ended up paying something well below $1 per hostname that we wanted to handle, even after the initial whack for the wildcard SSL certificate.

  54. Re:Why are you clicking through that box every tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed, quit using IE. Firefox is a few initial clicks and the cert is saved. You should be connecting from the same workstation every time anyway.

  55. Yes, I buy SSL, but not for $400/yr by leamanc · · Score: 1

    Most of my company intranet is plain http. There are two parts that we encrypt with SSL. First is the optional login widget on the intranet front page. Employees can customize their front page if they choose to login, but it's not required. But since we use a single sign-in type of situation, where many services are authenticating against the same LDAP service, we feel like we should keep that password encrypted, even on pages not available to the outside world.

    The second page that is https is a web form that allows you to change said LDAP password, by entering in the current password, and then the new password twice. Once again, same reasoning. This password gives you access to everything internal. We use a separate RADIUS server to authenticate for external services like VPN, etc.

    So yes, we did buy SSL certs for these pages, but they are not from VeriSign, and sure as hell are not $400 per year. Look around, there are a lot of cheaper SSL certs that are in the root chain for nearly all browsers and devices. The only thing we had trouble with--where users had to import the root CA and the cert themselves--was Android 1.x devices. Since we're an iPhone shop and don't officially support Android, I let them figure that one out. :-) But apparently Android 2.x devices worked without any extra hassle. But back to the main point, I think we paid $200 for three years' worth of SSL for these sites.

    Now, for our VPN and Zimbra webmail, which are both public facing, yeah we buy some fancy-schmancy VeriSign certs that make the address bar turn green and other features that allow the big CAs to gouge you for their certs. We do this for widest compatibility, as we allow people to check their webmail via https from any internet-connected computer in the world.

    --
    :q!
    1. Re:Yes, I buy SSL, but not for $400/yr by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      But back to the main point, I think we paid $200 for three years' worth of SSL for these sites.

      Even that's a lot. You can get SSL certs for about $15 a year.

      Some people are talking about startssl ,which apparently gives them out for free, but I don't know anything about that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:Yes, I buy SSL, but not for $400/yr by leamanc · · Score: 1

      Yep, you can get SSL certs for low or no cost, but one of our goals is having the cert's root CA already be in the root chain of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, IE, etc., so that we don't have to have users install the root CA themselves. (We'd just go self-signed if we wanted to put them through that.) It's not likely that the free or super-cheap certs will have their root CA installed and trusted in all of the aforementioned browsers.

      --
      :q!
    3. Re:Yes, I buy SSL, but not for $400/yr by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      From what people are talking about, startssl is in browsers.

      I know the $15 ones are. The root one is, that is...often you have to include a 'middle' key that's signed by a root key, and signed yours. (I've forgotten the term for this.)

      But regardless, it works in all browsers.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  56. internal CA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a previous life we used an internal CA. We just had to install the CA's PEM file on each workstation. This is made easier if you have an automated build system for workstations (which is good IT practice in general).

  57. StartCom SSL unlimited for small fee by epdp14 · · Score: 1

    If you become verified by StartCom at the level 2 rate you can issue *unlimited* SSL certificates for any verified domain (verification is free). The second level is $50 per year for unlimited certs... highly recommended! I use this on all my internal "appliances" and websites.

  58. Active directory could deploy for all the windows by nereid666 · · Score: 1

    If you have a Windows environment with a Active directory you could deploy with GPO (Group Policy) to all the desktops on the domain. http://www.tcpdump.com/kb/os/windows/certificate-deployment-using-gpo/all-pages.html If you have Linux desktops may be you colud deploy a package with the certificate. If you set up your own CA, then you must have to deploy the CA certificate once too.

    --
    Damia
  59. Verisign is a "designer" brand - buy WalMart Certs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're spending $400/year on a cert for an intranet, you're wasting money. You don't need EV, and certainly don't need the insurance policy against someone breaking the crypto. Certs recognized by all modern browsers can be had about about 1/40 of that.

  60. Self-signed works, you just have to approve once, by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    Once per browser, that is.

    My company's web-managed product just uses self-signed, with the option to add a third-party signed if the customer is willing to pay for and install it themselves.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  61. Startssl.com - gives you free basic SSL cert by aka_bigred · · Score: 1

    Startssl.com will give you a free Signed SSL certificate for use with a webserver. Good for your base host domain & 1 additional host. I've been using them for a couple years. I run my own server for fun at home and wanted to try SSL to add it to my resume, and also to secure communications, and just because I could. It wasn't too hard, and well worth it IMO. Give it a try, worst case you are out the cost - NOTHING!

  62. CA management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you do run your own CA, what tools do you use to manage it?

    Over the years I have written my own wrapper scripts around openssl, and I never bothered looking for something else, but as I read this thread I came across EASY-RSA and started to wonder what else is out there.

    And how about end-user instructions that exaplains how to install root and user cert? I manage one root plus around 40 user certs, and it is sometimes a hassle to provide solid instructions for all these browsers, as they tend to change.

    How to you handle this on a larger scale?

  63. tinyca2 by higuita · · Score: 1

    1- get tinyca2...
    2- install, start the tinyca2 GUI (yes, not command line!!) and generate *your own* CA
    3- create the certs you need, sign then with your CA
    4- import the your CA to the browsers, put it on a webpage, so people can easily install by just clicking on a link
    5- profit!!!

    tinyca2 is just one, there are more PKI packages out there, both more simple (easy-rsa) to more complex (openCA), to different license (bsd based - XCA)

    --
    Higuita
  64. For anyone who hasn't bought a cert before: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It goes like this: You give them a heap of money and a CSR. They send an email to the account listed as the administrative contact in the DNS registration. You click the link in the email, the cert is signed, and you then log back in through their website to download the final result.

    SO— if you can change the DNS details (e.g. if you can fake some letterhead and send a fax) _or_ if you can get access to that email account, _or_ if you can just convince the account holder to follow a link ("This is bob from verisign, we're going to have to shut off your website in 15 minutes if you don't click the link in the email we sent you.") then you can mint certs for an arbitrary site.

    Worse— there is no real way to tell how many certs are floating around out there with your name on them, so often the attack will be undetectable by the site operator.

  65. Allan Jude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could buy a wildcard certificate. *.yourdomain.com or *.intranet.yourdomain.com and have it cover all of your devices with a single legitimate certificate. You can also buy certificates from godaddy for $10-15 for a single domain, or $129 for a wildcard

  66. Re:Why are you clicking through that box every tim by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Why the hell would they agree to $100 per cert? I've never ever seen such a high price on a non-EV cert.

    If it's a damn internal cert, you can spend $15 and get the cheapest one that works on the stuff you support.

    Hell, you can probably find a wildcard for $150 if you look around.

    Of course, all this is stupid, you shouldn't have to sign stuff to get encryption, but we've all beaten that dead horse.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  67. Save the certificate by decep · · Score: 1

    SSL certificates have two goals, identity/trust and encryption. Self-signed certs establish encryption by default. If you save the self-signed certificate in your browser, then trust/identity is established manually, which is the only selling point of of a cert signed by a CA. Once you have the cert saved an error message is no longer displayed unless the certificate changes.

    Firefox has this option selected by default upon bypassing the initial error message. In IE, view the certificate and "Install certificate..." Done.

  68. Re:Active directory could deploy for all the windo by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

    You indeed can use RPM packages to deploy certs. When I was at a DOE lab working on LHC stuff, we had hundreds of CAs from all sorts of EDUs that needed to be installed on grid computing systems. All done with RPM package management (with yum of course).

  69. Godaddy Certificates by AftanGustur · · Score: 1
    Godaddy will sell you a 5 year wildcard certificate for something like 6-700 dollars, that's what we did with 200+ servers.

    A wildcard certificate has the server name *.yourcompany.com in it and you can install it on as many servers as you wish.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  70. Sadly, Slashdot ain't the place... by swb · · Score: 1

    ...to ask honest questions (even if top-level, not "do my job for me" detailed).

    It is the place, however, to get pilloried by experts who exclaim if you had only used the right search terms in Google, written a small kernel patch, rolled your own Linux distribution with it, and installed it on every server and PC in the company over the holiday weekend, your problem would have been easily & trivially solved in time to come up from the basement and join mom and dad for Thanksgiving dinner.

  71. There are reasonable options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand the impetus for not owning a certificate authority. I'll note the PCs are easy, it is the non-pc https enabled devices that are becoming the hard part. Anyhow, we just bought a multi-domain UCC certificatefrom godaddy for $99 a year that lets us give "legit" SSL to 100 or so devices without taking on the role of being a CA.

  72. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have used startssl.com; I was amazed to find that there exists an SSL certificate provider whose root certificate is present in most mainstream products and who provide all automatable services (including the issuing of certificates) free of charge.

    Highly recommended.

  73. I purchased from PSW Group by Skylinux · · Score: 1

    This is not for the OP but for the German Slashdot crowd.

    I have been using PSW Group at http://www.psw.net/ and I am very happy with them.
    Their website looked like a scam site to me but I researched them before I purchased and they are legit. I am now paying 29/year for not having to explain the private cert deal anymore.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    1. Re:I purchased from PSW Group by Skylinux · · Score: 1

      woops Intranet, sry

      --
      Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
  74. SSL and intranets are a bad fit by samwhite_y · · Score: 1

    A lot of responses that I have seen to this question are basically the following.

    "Create your own CA (certificate authority) certificate and distribute them to the client workstations." Then they accuse the original poster of having asked an overly simple and uninteresting question.

    I am going to say something nobody else seems to have said. SSL sucks big time for large workgroups inside a private intranet. It is an inappropriate solution that is being used for the lack of anything better. IE will give AD based authentication for browsers, but did not extend that to securing the communication channel itself.

    This issue is much nastier and more complex then anybody has allowed for. SSL does a very good job of solving the problem of creating secure communications over untrusted anonymous networks. However, they are a real pain when the only thing you want to do is create a secure communication between two machines in the same room. In those cases, SSL comes with a lot of overhead that is really not needed. In the case of two machines in the same room (or workgroup), the machines are already on internal corporate IP addresses, so a lot of the issues that SSL was designed to solve (validating that the IP address really points to the expected entity) just are not applicable. Usually the only reason why you want to encrypt the data is so that somewhat private data won't be sniffed by other users. You are not trying to prove that you are a legitimate seller of any goods or services.

    What really astounded me were the claims that it would be easy to get users to accept company controlled installs of browsers and tools. I have worked in such an environment and it was actively resisted and foiled because the choices were so limiting. For those who say "it would work it was done right", probably have not done cross browser development where you had to test on Linux, Mac, and variants of Windows machines. Nor have they done Java development where the Java has to communicate to the server (over https) as well (Java has its own client CA chain distribution).

    Every place I have ever worked (big or small) has had http web sites when they really should have been https because of the pain of trying to use SSL. To say that this is because of bad IT management I think gets it wrong. SSL is a bad fit for this problem space and browsers (and Java) need to support other security solutions. It would be nice to recommend Kerberos, but Kerberos has really only gotten full implementation with AD and is even more painful for client adoption in most (with non Microsoft machines in the mix) real world scenarios I have seen. The state of intranet security is broken at its foundations and the proposed solutions that have been suggested here would not work (in practical, reliable, real world usage) for many workgroups working inside a much larger corporate entity.

    1. Re:SSL and intranets are a bad fit by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      A lot of responses that I have seen to this question are basically the following.

      "Create your own CA (certificate authority) certificate and distribute them to the client workstations." Then they accuse the original poster of having asked an overly simple and uninteresting question.

      I am going to say something nobody else seems to have said. SSL sucks big time for large workgroups inside a private intranet. It is an inappropriate solution that is being used for the lack of anything better. IE will give AD based authentication for browsers, but did not extend that to securing the communication channel itself.

      GSSAPI does support this, but MS decided it was better to come up with their *own* protocol wrapping GSSAPI (which is itself a wrapper) with another non-standard one with less functionality ...

      This issue is much nastier and more complex then anybody has allowed for. SSL does a very good job of solving the problem of creating secure communications over untrusted anonymous networks. However, they are a real pain when the only thing you want to do is create a secure communication between two machines in the same room.

      Internal networks are totally immune from spoofing, MitM, and sniffing?

      In those cases, SSL comes with a lot of overhead that is really not needed. In the case of two machines in the same room (or workgroup), the machines are already on internal corporate IP addresses, so a lot of the issues that SSL was designed to solve (validating that the IP address really points to the expected entity)

      SSL as used by 99% of certs doesn't validate IP addresses, certificate validation rules in SSL-using software *typically* check that the hostname being connected to matches the hostname for which the certificate has been issued (but, not always, consider the case of EAP, where there is no hostname resolution capability in place at the time the certificate is presented, as the IP stack isn't up yet), or in more rare cases that the IP address matches one of the subjectAltName extensions (which can include IP).

      just are not applicable. Usually the only reason why you want to encrypt the data is so that somewhat private data won't be sniffed by other users.

      E.g., by MitM.

      You are not trying to prove that you are a legitimate seller of any goods or services.

      What really astounded me were the claims that it would be easy to get users to accept company controlled installs of browsers and tools. I have worked in such an environment and it was actively resisted and foiled because the choices were so limiting. For those who say "it would work it was done right", probably have not done cross browser development where you had to test on Linux, Mac, and variants of Windows machines. Nor have they done Java development where the Java has to communicate to the server (over https) as well (Java has its own client CA chain distribution).

      Every place I have ever worked (big or small) has had http web sites when they really should have been https because of the pain of trying to use SSL. To say that this is because of bad IT management I think gets it wrong. SSL is a bad fit for this problem space and browsers (and Java) need to support other security solutions.

      What better solutions are there?

      It would be nice to recommend Kerberos, but Kerberos has really only gotten full implementation with AD

      My OpenLDAP+Heimdal setups say otherwise. Including those where Firefox on Linux does GSSAPI authentication to web servers and proxy servers, my mail client does GSSAPI auth to the IMAP server, virt-manager does GSSAPI auth to libvirtd etc. etc. Why doesn't this work well for Windows clients? Because the Microsoft Kerberos implementation is non-standard (and tied directly into Microsoft-specific protocols).

      and is even more painful for cli

  75. You want a wildcard cert. by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Find the cheapest single-root wildcard that will let you do at least 2K. Then install it everywhere in the intranet, being careful with the permissions so nobody can easily steal it.

    Either get it on a single-year basis or be prepared to do a revocation if it gets stolen before it expires. If you are conscientious with your file and folder structures and permissions, though, and you hire trustworthy techs, it probably won't get stolen. Unless you depend heavily on an OS with lots of zero-days and your site is a high-value target, of course; banks that use IIS are just asking for trouble.

    If you never patch your server OSes or firewalls you shouldn't buy certs at all. They'll just get stolen.

  76. MOD PARENT UP by kc8jhs · · Score: 1

    This is the most sane way to handle this, if its truly an admin only control interface. It's also a great way to allow access to appliances from outside of the private network as well.

  77. 300+ comments later... by cormandy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It has been said about 300 times here already: install an internal certificate authority and push the CA certificate out to all of your browsers....
    The cheap option is to use an open-source SSL CA; a client of mine (one of the planet's most profitable law firms) was using Verisign to sign internal certs, partly out of laziness, for internally protected (https/SSL) apps. I recommended an internal cert auth and their security gurus deployed an open source CA. They pushed the CA cert out to the worldwide desktops via Windows Group Policy so that the browsers would recognize the signing authority. worked a charm: all internal certs signed for free. Lots of money saved...
    For another client (big company that manages railway infrastructure on a big island in the Atlantic), we deployed the Oracle "Certificate Authority" (Part of Oracle Identity Management) - don't laugh - and it worked as well. Needed to push the CA certificate out to the desktops via Windows Group Policy. Also worked a charm.
    Only fools use public cert auths such as Verisign to sign internal-facing certificates.
    Both clients had it on their "to do" lists to deploy the MS Certificate Authority, but is was deemed low priority, so another solution was needed...

  78. wild-card cert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't purchase any of our SSL certs from over-priced Verisign. We buy them from other companies that provide browser trusted certificates for $10/ year.

    For our internal sites we bought one wild-card certificate which we use for all our servers. It costs more but we use it for hundreds of things so we save in the long run.

  79. CACert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.cacert.org do FREE certs and are in a number of Linux Distros (Debian, Gentoo, Mandriva). However they don't do organization validation, so the cert has the domain name but not the "claimed" organization name.

    They even have a howto, http://wiki.cacert.org/SimpleApacheCert. Plenty for most SSL requirements.

  80. $400/year? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how certificates don't actually do anything at all except eliminate browser warnings, why on earth are you spending $400 for an internal appliance when you can cet one for $15/year? or $35/year, or $75/year all in a matter of minutes.

  81. I am glad to find somebody .... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... that knows everything there is to know about technology.

    No false modesty there, thanks goodness....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  82. You are wrong. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Man on the middle attack: It can happen on an Intranet. This is why you need things like SSL.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  83. get a *.company.com cert by anton_kg · · Score: 1

    one could also get a class 2 cert (valid for *.company.com). It would be also valid for internal.company.com domain.

  84. Digicert Wildcard Cert by Karrots · · Score: 1

    We typically just reuse our wildcard cert from DigiCert. They allow as many resigns as you want.

    http://www.digicert.com/

  85. Large companies centrally manage by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    A large company could distribute their new CA information via a login script. It sounds like this guy lacks that luxury.

  86. Namecheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Namecheap will sell you a Comodo cert for $10 a year. That'll do what you want.

  87. AGREE by LeDopore · · Score: 1

    SSL is a PITA. It's much easier to configure Apache to only serve admin pages to the local machine. SSH tunnels are more secure and easier to maintain too.

    --
    Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
  88. hi by ElizaEliza · · Score: 1

    This is a great post; it was very informative. I look forward in reading more of your work. Also, I made sure to bookmark your website so I can come back later. I enjoyed every moment of reading it. http://www.optionpoppers.com/

  89. Hi by Eliza027 · · Score: 1

    I recently came across your article and have been reading along. I want to express my admiration of your writing skill and ability to make readers read from the beginning to the end. I would like to read newer posts and to share my thoughts with you http://www.optionpoppers.com/

  90. SSL Certificates don't have to be super expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I buy my certificates through OmegaSphere. The service has been fine, and the price is low enough that it isn't worth the hassle to try and do it myself.

    Note that they actually charge less for an intranet certificate than they would for an internet-facing certificate.