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

In that case the NAS company should, at a minimum, be loading their NAS with a certificate signed by a CA owned by the NAS company, where the trust chain for their NAS's certificates are easily available for users to grab and install.

In an ideal world they would load a letencrypt certificate and set up the tooling required to automatically pull down a new one when required.

A NAS company owned CA doesn't offer much of a benefit directly for the plug-n-play users, but it's still better than just a self signed cert, and for people who care about their security even a little bit it can significantly protection.

Most Plug-n-Play NAS solutions will integrate with a web api and/or an app, and it's more common than it should be that NAS'es are exposed to the internet.

Once you control both the NAS and it's clients, there's absolutely no reason not to preload a complete PKI implementation. Even just an installation app which loaded the chain onto any device you wanted to interact with the NAS would be sufficient.

If NAS'es are intended for non-technical people, then any NAS sold should be secure by default.




My point is precisely that current browsers and OSes make it impossible to ship a secure-by-default device running a local web server, NAS or otherwise.

Requiring users to install a globally trusted CA is a disaster from a security point of view (now my NAS vendor or anyone that hacks them can pose as google.com!), and for this reason doesn’t even work with modern Android apps anymore, for example.


Offering a layperson NAS buyer a self-signed cert is not "secure by default" even if browsers did accept it.


Would it be less secure than unencrypted HTTP?


No.

But if you want "secure by default" then neither one is acceptable.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

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

Search: