Let’s Encrypt Begins Supporting IP Address Certificates

Submitted ⁨⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨KarnaSubarna@lemmy.ml⁩ to ⁨selfhosted@lemmy.world⁩

https://linuxiac.com/lets-encrypt-begins-supporting-ip-address-certificates/

Who benefits from this? Even though Let’s Encrypt stresses that most site operators will do fine sticking with ordinary domain certificates, there are still scenarios where a numeric identifier is the only practical choice:

Infrastructure services such as DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) – where clients may pin a literal IP address for performance or censorship-evasion reasons.
IoT and home-lab devices – think network-attached storage boxes, for example, living behind static WAN addresses.
Ephemeral cloud workloads – short-lived back-end servers that spin up with public IPs faster than DNS records can propagate.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

comrade_twisty@feddit.org ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Can I get a cert for 127.0.0.1 ? /s

source
- jj4211@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  If you can get their servers to connect to that IP under your control, you’ve earned it
  
  source
- Bort@hilariouschaos.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  Is /s more or less IPs than /24? I need lots of IPs in case I want to expand
  
  source
- howrar@lemmy.ca ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  How many bits is a /s mask?
  
  source
  - lando55@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    i
    
    source
  - skankhunt42@lemmy.ca ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    8
    
    source
- unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  The down votes are from people who work in IT support that have to deal with idiots that play with things they dont understand.
  
  source
  - Gonzako@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    nah, I was once an idiot who didn’t understand so idgaf
    
    source
  - kautau@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    It’s unfortunate they don’t know what /s means
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    How do I setup a reverse proxy for pure TCP?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Allero@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
F I N A L L Y

Now tell me it supports IPv6 and I’ll be the happiest man alive

source
AliasVortex@lemmy.world ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
That’s kind of awesome! I have a bunch of home lab stuff, but have been putting off buying a domain (I was a broke college student when I started my lab and half the point was avoiding recurring costs- plus I already run the DNS, as far as the WAN is concerned, I have whatever domain I want). My loose plan was to stand up a certificate authority and push the root public key out with active directory, but being able to certify things against Let’s Encrypt might make things significantly easier.

source
- qaz@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  FYI you can get a numeric xyz domain for 1$ a year
  
  source
  - Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    At least for the first year.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I use a domain, but for homelab I eventually switched to my own internal CA.
  
  Instead of having to do service.domain.tld it’s nice to do service.lan.
  
  source
  - martin@lemmy.caliban.io ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Any good instructions you would recommend for doing this?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- oasis@piefed.social ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Setting up a root and a immediate CA is significantly more fun though ;)
  It's also teaches you more about PKI which is a good skill to have.
  
  source
  - WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    but for the love of god and your own benefit, put a name constraint directly on the root cert
    
    source
thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Its like self signed certs with the convience of a third party

source
- AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Maybe kinda, but it’s also a third party whose certificates are almost if not entirely universally trusted. Self-signed certs cause software to complain unless you also spread a root certificate to be trusted to any machine that might use one of your self-signed certs.
  
  source
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Would this work with a public dynamic DNS?

source
- SteveTech@programming.dev ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  With dynamic DNS? Yeah it always has, as long as you can host a http server.
  
  With a dynamic IP? It should do, the certs are only valid for 6 days for that reason.
  
  source
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I never understood why we don’t use IP certificates to encrypt the domain with SNI.

source
- dariusj18@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  What do you mean?
  
  source
  - Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    In much simpler terms:
    
    Think of an IP address like a street address. 192 My Street.
    
    There might be multiple businesses at one street address. In real life we address them with things like 1/192 My Street and 2/192 My Street, but there’s no direct parallel to that in computer networks. Instead, what we do is more like directing your letter to say “Business A c/o 192 My Street”. That’s what SNI does.
    
    Because we have to write all of that on the outside of the envelope, everyone gets to see that we’re communicating with Business A. But what if one of the businesses at 192 My Street is highly sensitive and we’d rather people didn’t know we were communicating with them? @bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de’s proposal is basically like if you put the “Business A” part inside the envelope, so the mailman (and anyone who sees the letter on the way) only see that it’s going to 192 My Street. Then the front room at that address could open the envelope and see that the ultimate destination is Business A, and pass it along to them.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Currently before establishing an encrypted connection to a webserver the domain is sent to the webserver unencrypted so that the server can choose the appropriate certificate to use for encryption. That is called SNI, Server Name Indication.
    
    Of course that’s a privacy risk. There are finally protocols to fix this but they aren’t very widespread and depend on DNS over HTTPS.
    
    I think issuing certificates based on the IP and sending the domain name encrypted based on that certificate could have fixed this issue ages ago.
    
    source
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Hell yuh.

source
squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Couldn’t this prove very troublesome in combination with carrier grade nat?

source
- jj4211@lemmy.world ⁨59⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
  They will require the requester to prove they control the standard http(s) ports, which isn’t possible with any nat.
  
  It won’t work for such users, but also wouldn’t enable any sort of false claims over a shared IP.
  
  source
- melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I don’t see how? Normal HTTP verification would still apply so you’d need port forwarding. You can’t host anything on the CGNAT IP so you can’t pass verification and they won’t issue you a cert.
  
  source
  - squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    You can totally host something on carrier-grade NAT using techniques like NAT hole punching.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments