Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

Let's Encrypt Issues 100 Millionth Certificate

posted by martyb on Saturday July 01 2017, @01:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the one-centimegacert dept.

takyon writes:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/let-s-encrypt-100-million-certificates,34908.html

Let's Encrypt, a Certificate Authority (CA) managed by a non-profit organization whose members include Mozilla and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others, reached a milestone of 100 million issued certificates.

[...] When Let's Encrypt's service was first made available, less than 40% of the web was using HTTPS encryption, a milestone that took 20 years to reach, according to the nonprofit. Let's Encrypt has been available for less than two years, and due largely to its free service, 58% of the web now uses HTTPS encryption.

Previously: "Let's Encrypt" Has Issued 1 Million Certificates

[Ed. Note: SoylentNews uses Let's Encrypt certs for its development and Wiki pages, among others.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Let's Encrypt Issues 100 Millionth Certificate | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 5 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by kaszz on Saturday July 01 2017, @02:12PM (2 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday July 01 2017, @02:12PM (#533909) Journal

    Lets just remind everybody that the current model of trust is a bad design. Even if it's better than none. An arbitrary list in the browser decides which CAs that get to authorize anyone to pretend being any site. A DNS based approach is one alternative, but trusting the DNS administrators is also not a good trust model.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday July 01 2017, @03:21PM (1 child)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday July 01 2017, @03:21PM (#533915) Journal

    In the late 90s, there was this s-http. From what I read, it was better than https, but as happens in standards wars, the best solution doesn't always win, for a variety of reasons.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 02 2017, @07:41AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 02 2017, @07:41AM (#534112) Journal

      Interesting, but shttp:// [wikipedia.org] seems vulnerable to downgrade attacks. There is no mention either how to determine who to trust to avoid MITM.