SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Popular Bash shell script LetsEncrypt.sh, which is used to manage free SSL/TLS certificates from the Let's Encrypt project, has renamed this week to avoid a trademark row. This comes in the wake of Let's Encrypt successfully fending off Comodo, which tried to cynically snatch "Let's Encrypt" for itself.
LetsEncrypt.sh, written by Germany-based Lukas Schauer, is now known as Dehydrated. If you have scripts or apps that rely on pulling in his code and running it, they may stop working as a result of the name change. Dehydrated is developed independently by Schauer and is not officially affiliated with Let's Encrypt.
"This project was renamed from letsencrypt.sh because the original name was violating Let's Encrypt's trademark policy. I know that this results in quite a lot of installations failing but I didn't have a choice," reads the new Dehydrated README.
[...] Full disclosure: This article's author uses Let's Encrypt to provide HTTPS encryption for his personal websites. And you should use it too.
Our Previous Story: 800-Pound Comodo Tries to Trademark Upstart Rival's "Let's Encrypt" Name
(Score: 5, Insightful) by butthurt on Tuesday September 20 2016, @02:02AM
> Let's Encrypt hands them out for free to anyone with zero validation.
Not zero: they require an e-mail address, or so I've heard.
> Why isn't this seen as an attack on the entire SSL concept?
Will Let’s Encrypt issue Organization Validation (OV) or Extended Validation (EV) certificates?
We have no plans to issue OV or EV certificates.
--https://letsencrypt.org/docs/faq/ [letsencrypt.org]
My browser makes the distinction; yours probably does, too.
> Grow the f*ck up people, if the [powers that be in your country] want your porn browsing history they will get it from the source, not by tapping the link.
In the USA they tap the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [wikipedia.org]
http://www.matthewaid.com/post/58904880659/nsa-surveillance-programs-cover-75-of-internet [matthewaid.com]
> Your ISP can be a problem, but half the effort and expense put into this mindless encryption would have beat them into submission.
Some of the people who criticised or publicised the U.S. surveillance apparatus have met with significant retaliation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_%28U.S._intelligence_official%29 [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tamm [wikipedia.org]
I wouldn't say their efforts have succeeded in ending co-operation between spooks and ISPs. Even if that happens, the effort and expense put into Let's Encrypt may not be wasted: it's not only governments that wish to spy upon Web users, but private criminals and (as noted by others in this topic) advertisers.
On Dec. 24, 2004, TTNet sent out a full table of Internet routes via BGP that routed most Internet traffic through Turkey for several hours that morning.
[...]
In August 2008, two security researchers demonstrated at DEFCON how an attacker could eavesdrop or change a company's unencrypted data by exploiting BGP. The attacker would reroute all of the company's traffic through their own network and then send it to its destination without the owner's knowledge.
--http://www.pcworld.com/article/157905/net_routing_nightmares.html [pcworld.com]
The Internet is a big place; when you use HTTP you choose to trust organisations in various countries. If you want your browsing habits to be public, you are of course free to inform the world of them (set up a proxy, turn on logging, and put the logs online). If you disapprove of SSL you do have the option of avoiding sites that require it (thank you, though, for supporting soylentnews.org).