Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Agree that self-signed SSL certificates are treated as if they were the red-headed step-children of SSL. Perhaps if movements like Let's Encrypt[1] take off, self-signed certs will be a thing of the past.

[1]: https://letsencrypt.org/




What is the difference between Let's Encrypt and StartSSL?


I am hopeful that Let's Encrypt will do better than StartSSL's SHA-1 and paid revocation.


StartSSL will use whatever certificate digest algorithm you used in your certificate signing request. Most openssl.cnf files distributed with Linux OSes set the default algorithm to SHA-1 - that's nothing to do with Startcom.

Simply specify an explicit algorithm if you want to get a certificate using that. For example, if you do:

$ openssl req -new -sha256 -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout foo.key -nodes

and give them that CSR, you will get back a SHA-256 certificate.

EDIT: They also have a SHA-256 root (in most browsers, though you don't need a second-preimage-resistant digest algorithm for a /root certificate/) and SHA-256 intermediates at https://startssl.com/certs/ - go to the relevant class directory and there is a sha2 directory inside that.


StartSSL's interface is a huge pain. Let's Encrypt is hoping to offer things like modules for Apache and Nginx that make them take care of acquiring certs automatically, though we'll see.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: