this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
310 points (93.8% liked)

Sysadmin

7739 readers
2 users here now

A community dedicated to the profession of IT Systems Administration

No generic Lemmy issue posts please! Posts about Lemmy belong in one of these communities:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Basically with self signed certs, you control the ENTIRE trust chain. When you use existing CAs, any bad actor in any of those CAs can generate certs that you would end up trusting. So it's less secure because you have to trust a lot more people.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And if you're not using a trusted CA, you are unable to protect against MitM and other forgery attacks, as well as needing to rely upon a mechanism like TOFU in order to avoid auth fatigue and other human error, which is not great.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you are unable to protect against MitM and other forgery attacks

Uhh, using a self signed cert doesn't mean you just accept any old cert... Not every cert is designed for serving content to a browser. You do SSL mutual auth between services using self signed certs

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You do SSL mutual auth between services using self signed certs

If you do, you remove the ability to prove that a service is what it claims to be as this requires accepting its provided cert - that is, authenticate it. You have to trust somewhere, even in a "zero trust" environment. Using self-signed certs for services to communicate means that you have to either have manual involvement every time a service comes up or accept the authenticity of a self-signed cert automatically. Either would be a compromise in security over use of a private CA, not an improvement.

Again, that works if your only concern is data across the pipes being encrypted during transmission but, it removes nearly all of the other additional security provided by PKI and increases your threat surface. It can be acceptable in some cases, like dev envs or as temporary measures but, with the constant increase in malicious traffic and activity, we've got to aim for better.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh. I'm absolutely including a private CA as part of self signed cert. That's probably my misuse of the term

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Oh! Then you are doing it right. That was basically my entire objection - having A chain of trust is necessary to effectively and securely use certs because you have a mechanism to validate, rather than trust the cert that is presented as authentic. :)