[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] Letsencrypt and Tor Hidden Services
Im wondering , have anyone got letsencrypt to work with a .onion site? Or is it jus clearnet
Alec Muffett <alecm@xxxxxx> skrev: (19 augusti 2015 20:43:53 CEST)
>Pardon me replying to two at once...
>> On Aug 19, 2015, at 18:34, Seth David Schoen <schoen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Right now, the industry allows .onion certs temporarily, but only EV
>> certs, not DV certs (the kind that Let's Encrypt is going to issue),
>> and the approval to issue them under the current compromise is going
>> to expire
>...or perhaps not...
>> It's seemed like the efforts at IETF to reserve specific
>> names" would be an important step in making it possible for CAs to
>> certs for these names permanently. These efforts appeared to get
>> bogged down at the last IETF meeting.
>Hi, I'm Alec, and I am co-author of the Onion RFC draft with Jacob
>Reports of the bogging-down have been greatly exaggerated, and I wish
>people would stop repeating them.
>The status of the Onion RFC draft is viewable at:
>...and this afternoon I created some amendments to the draft to address
>IETF and IANA concerns, and have circulated them amongst the team (me,
>Jake, Mark) to see if I've goofed.
>We will merge them, soon, in good time for the next review.
>In the most recent review IANA in particular were very helpful,
>offering to rewrite some of their stuff in order to make it abundantly
>clear to CA/B-Forum that:
>1) onion will be a special case
>2) onion should never be delegated
>3) but nonetheless SSL certificates should be issued for it
>...which proactively addresses a concern from a few months back re:
>whether CA/B-Forum would nitpick a "Special Use" designation.
>TL;DR - we are not past the finish line yet, and there is work to be
>done and challenge, but we're not down nor are we out.
>Deadline is November 1st, as explained at length, here:
>> (I'm hoping to write something on the EFF site about this issue,
>> may have kind of far-reaching consequences.)
>Good. Please avoid repeating the doom-and-gloom stuff that I've seen
>elsewhere, it distracts from the discussion to have to expend time
>correcting folk on Twitter.
>> Anyway, I would encourage anyone who wants to work on this issue to
>> in touch with Christian Grothoff, the lead author of the P2P Names
>> and ask what the status is and how to help out.
>The P2P Names draft is not relevant for ".onion" registration; for
>other Tor-related names such as ".exit", and other services such as
>".i2p" it is still relevant.
>> Theoretically the Tor Browser could come up with a different optional
>> mechanism for ensuring the integrity of TLS connections to hidden
>> (based on the idea that virtually everyone who tries to use the
>> services is using the Tor Browser code). I don't know whether the
>> Browser developers currently think this is a worthwhile path. I can
>> think of arguments against it -- in particular, the next generation
>> services design will provide much better cryptographic security than
>> current HS mechanism does, so maybe it should just be a higher
>> to get that rolled out, rather than trying to make up new mechanisms
>> help people use TLS on hidden services.
>I would recommend against giving up the pursuit of HTTPS certificates
>on Onion sites.
>I explained some of this at
>>> The reason [ for pursuing SSL ] is simply that HTTP and HTTPS have
>diverged (and are apparently likely to diverge further?) in how they
>treat (eg:) secure cookies, and rolling a custom version of our
>codebase to know and understand that âHTTP over Onionâ
>will/may/will-not have features like referrer-scrubbing or CORS in a
>HTTPS-sympathetic manner (whilst the scheme in the request still *says*
>that it arrived over HTTP) would be complex. I personally feel that to
>expect more common codebases such as Wordpress or Drupal to
>special-case Onion addresses would be presumptuous, be unlikely, add
>cost, and inhibit Onion adoption.
>Not creating barriers to wider onion adoption seems like a good idea to
>Giving TorBrowserBundle special powers to make secure connections to
>Onion sites, thereby making (say) "stunnel" or "wget" ineffective for
>OnionSites, seems also to be a bad idea for adoption.
>Conversely: Mozilla are going to start gating some of their features to
>Thus: making SSL work *somehow* - with privacy preservation where
>relevant - on onion sites, appears to be the path to greatest onion
>> elrippo writes:
>>> i don't think letsencrypt will work on a HS because letsencrypt
>checks  if the domain you type in, is registered.
>>> So for example on a clearnet IP which has a registered domain at
>mydomain.com called myserver.tld, letsencrypt
>>> makes a DNS check for this clearnet IP and gets the awnser, that
>this clearnet IP has a registeres domain called
>>> myserver.tld on mydomain.com.
>>> How should letsencrypt do this on a HS?
>> If the CA/Browser Forum agreed that it was proper to do this, we
>> create a special case for requests that include a .onion name to use
>> a different (non-DNS) resolution mechanism, recognizing "that DNS is
>> not the only name resolution protocol on the Internet", as Christian
>> Grothoff put it.
>For organisations which can arrange to register a EV certificate -
>companies, etc - once the ".onion" domain is formalised it will be
>possible to get a EV certificate created for an Onion address by using
>the process documented at
>Seth is precisely correct, however, that there is no means (yet) for
>individuals to register .Onion addresses for certificates, let alone
>I had discussions with some people in CA/B-Forum a few weeks ago, and
>there may be a way to pursue these ("IV Certificates" - see
>https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Glossary for details) - and assuming the
>.onion registration completes smoothly, I think that would be a good
>path to pursue.
>> In a way, the special-casing is what makes some folks in the
>> Forum nervous right now: if there's no "official" notion of the
>> of some names, how can CAs know which names should use which
>> mechanisms? (For example, maybe some CAs have heard that they should
>> treat .onion specially, but others haven't.) If they're unsure which
>> mechanisms to use, how can they know that the interpretation they
>> to the names will be the same as end-users
>Very true, it's complicated.
>Fortunately the light at the end of the tunnel, for once, is not an
> - alec
>tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to