I almost wrote it wouldn't work, but what works always depends on the
particulars of your situation. For example, depending on how many domains
you need and what mechanisms you're using, you might be able to use Subject
Alternative Name (SAN) certificates to mitigate the lack of a wildcard
certificate. Another thing I was thinking about as I wrote that is that a
growing number of libraries provision resources with vendors such as Amazon
-- for that, you'll need the cooperation of your institution.
Automating renewal is a good practice. Remember when when the doi.org cert
expired a few years back? Wasn't pretty and could have worked out much
worse had the domain squatters been on the ball. It's not hard to automate,
and instructions are easy enough to find. Even when squatters aren't an
issue, expired certs cause all kinds of scary warnings.
One of the big problems libraries face is that a lot of free stuff is not
viable for many libraries that need help the most. The whole problem is
these institutions often lack both staff and technical resources. And even
if they do have someone with the requisite skills to build great stuff out
of virtually nothing, they risk serious problems when that person leaves
and they can't replace them with someone with similar abilities.
It is taken as gospel here that encryption is always good, but it's always
important to be aware of tradeoffs. For example, encryption hides
attacks. It can instill a false sense of security -- there are lots of
ways to track activity that aren't affected by encryption. It prevents
caching and complicates complying with CIPA as well as state law filtering
requirements, and it could create issues if your services must communicate
with legacy apps.
kyle
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Kyle Breneman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Thanks for chiming in, Kyle. I think, in your second-to-last sentence, you
> were about to say "impossible." Is that right? Also is it difficult to
> setup automatic certificate renewal? For the record, I'm not trying to
> bypass any organizational processes here, just doing some legwork in hopes
> of handing campus IT a suggestion that will save them money.
>
> Kyle
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > There are a few other catches. For example, you need to be able to run an
> > appropriate ACME client and set up automatic certificate renewal since
> the
> > maximum length you can get is 90 days. You also can't get wildcard
> > certificates which makes doing things like proxying by host name (e.g.
> > ezproxy). Your organization might also care if you bypass their process
> for
> > getting domain names.
> >
> > kyle
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a thread about per-TLD rate limits being a problem for
> > universities;
> > > it seems per a post at the end of that thread that letsencrypt might
> > exempt
> > > your institution from ratelimits, but an official agent of the
> university
> > > needs to submit the request:
> > >
> > > https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/rate-limiting-at-an-
> > > educational-institution/5910/24
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Kyle Breneman <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for that detailed and interesting reply, Jonathan.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <
> [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just to clarify, by "Commercial certificates offer stronger proof
> of
> > > > > identity", you mean an "Extended Validation" (EV) certificate.
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_Certificate
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are getting a 'commercial certificate' that is a standard
> > > 'domain
> > > > > validated' cert instead of an EV cert, you are not getting any
> > stronger
> > > > > proof of identity than you would from letsencrypt.
> > > > >
> > > > > The cert used at https://www.ubalt.edu does NOT appear to be an EV
> > > cert,
> > > > > but an ordinary domain validated one. (Additionally, that
> particular
> > > web
> > > > > page serves http: images , triggering browser mixed content
> > warnings!).
> > > > >
> > > > > Same thing for the cert at https://langsdale.ubalt.edu/.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at another Maryland public university: https://umd.edu/
> > > appears
> > > > > similar. NOT an EV cert, and additionally serving http assets
> > > triggering
> > > > a
> > > > > mixed content warning.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm actually having trouble finding an academic institution, or
> even
> > a
> > > > > standard ecommerce site, that DOES use an EV cert.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can tell it's an EV cert when chrome or Firefox put the name of
> > the
> > > > > organization in the location bar to the left of URL. Additionally,
> > in
> > > > > Firefox, if you click that name, then click the right-chevron 'more
> > > info'
> > > > > icon, then click "More information", under "Website Identity" it
> will
> > > > list
> > > > > an "Owner:" for an EV cert. For an ordinary domain-validated cert,
> it
> > > > will
> > > > > list "This website does not supply ownership information" instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's an example of an EV cert, the cert on digicert.com, a
> seller
> > of
> > > > > certs:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.digicert.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > If your cert is not EV but is just "domain validated", then despite
> > it
> > > > > being "commercial" it supplies the same level of proof of identity
> > as a
> > > > > letsencrypt cert -- proof of control of the domain at the time the
> > cert
> > > > was
> > > > > issued, either way.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We are starting to roll out LetsEncrypt for all of our services
> and
> > > > > > clients who do not use or want commercial certificates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that LetsEncrypt offers only domain authentication, in most
> > > cases
> > > > > > specifically validated by your control of the server. Commercial
> > > > > > certificates offer stronger proof of identity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We recommend commercial certificates for any sites that conduct
> > > > financial
> > > > > > transactions or require HIPPA compliance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cary Gordon
> > > > > > The Cherry Hill Company
> > > > > > http://chillco.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Kyle Breneman (via lita-l Mailing
> > > > List) <
> > > > > > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apologies for cross-posting...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone out there working at a public institution that's using
> > Let's
> > > > > > Encrypt for security certificates? I just suggested to our
> campus
> > IT
> > > > > that
> > > > > > we switch to using Let's Encrypt. They told me it would need to
> > > clear
> > > > > > State of Maryland approval process first, and suggested that it
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > helpful to be able to point to other public institutions that are
> > > using
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Kyle Breneman
> > > > > > > Integrated Digital Services Librarian
> > > > > > > University of Baltimore
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To maximize your use of LITA-L or to unsubscribe, see
> > > > > > http://www.ala.org/lita/involve/email
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|
