upvote
Turns out ”bank-grade security” is not something to strive towards. In the case of TLS certificates, most banks still believe they need EV certs, even though browsers stopped making any visual distinctions for EV certificates around 2018-2019.
reply
Apart from the fact one dev as a test exploited a loophole to make a single sort of convincing EV cert (which could easily be fixed by a policy change), EV certs are still vastly harder to exploit or clone than almost any other certificate. The eventual solution will be an EV cert that isn't named an EV cert so that the CA/B can protect their reputations for claiming they're a bad idea.

The fact the browsers stopped recognizing this is political, not based on any reality of sense. Everyone appeals to authority what the best way to do TLS is, and the problem is the authority is stupid.

reply
> which could easily be fixed by a policy change

It can't. Nothing is guaranteeing that organization names are globally unique, so getting an EV cert for a conflicting org name will always be possible. Well-known counterexamples are Apple (Beatles or tech company?), Nissan (computer repair guy, or car maker?), and Microsoft/MikeRoweSoft (some guy named Mike Rowe, or software giant from Redmond?).

Unless you're willing to retroactively cancel a massive number of trademarks, EVs with human-readable company names are not going to happen. The best you can do is some kind of unique company id, but who's going to check that "US0378331005" is the right one?

reply
Also, legal names of companies can sometimes not match the well-known brand, making it harder to decide if the EV cert was issued for the correct company.
reply
Is there any evidence of EV certs actually helping prevent phishing back when browsers showed them much more prominently? Or did users just not care/understand the difference?
reply
Certificate/key renewal was a mess in every enterprise environment I worked in.

My suspicion is that corporations in general don‘t handle tasks well that need to follow an exact timeline and can‘t be postponed by a week or two.

reply
The real fun starts when you have to do an unscheduled renewal!

Companies are generally able to develop a workable process around regularly-scheduled tasks. If you can't, you'll quickly run into trouble due to late salary payouts or missed tax filing deadlines. They'll rapidly accumulate a thick layer of bureaucracy around it, but as long as it gets exercised regularly it'll remain more-or-less functional.

Try the same with PKI and you'll run into massive issues during mass revocation events. Having a renewal process which takes 2 months and involves dozens of stakeholders is totally fine for a cert which gets renewed every 12 months on a well-known date - but not when you're working with a 72-hour deadline...

reply
As well as having; proper documented (and tested) procedures and appropriate level of staffing/staff availability (not overburdened by juggling too many tasks and projects) - AND... keeping staff over several period/activity cycles, so they have actual experience performing the ongoing maintenance activities required. Oh - and heck, even a master calendar of "events" which need to be acted on, with - ya'know reminders and things...

Yeah - I have almost never seen any corporate or government environment actually take a "forward-thinking" approach to any of the above...

reply
Anyone who thinks this is that trivial has never worked in enterprise IT.

Automated certificate renewal is maybe supported by 10% of services I operate where I work. And we're pretty modern. An organization with more legacy platforms is likely at "nothing supports automated renewal".

We are a decade or two out from 47 day expiry being a sane concept.

reply
This is exactly why CAs are slowly reducing cert validity.

With a 47-day validity already on the calendar for 2029, nobody in their right mind is going to onboard a new service/device without automated renewal in 2026. Same with any kind of contract renewal: are you going to risk staying with the current vendor who is "considering" supporting ACME "at some point in the future", or would you rather ask their competitor who already supports it to make you a nice deal to convince your manager?

Sure, automated cert renewal might be supported by 10% of services right now, but what is that going to look like a couple of years from now when 100% of businesses are pestering their vendors for it, and leaving for competitors if they can't deliver?

reply
Can confirm. Have encountered many on-prem and lift-and-shift solutions with no automated means of updating certs. The worst contenders are usually 1) executables on windows server (version 2012, of course), 2) old, obscure or very outdated database servers and 3) custom hardware firewalls. They are the worst.

To make things easy they usually all use different cert formats as well, requiring you to have an arsenal of conversion scripts ready.

reply
> 3) custom hardware firewalls.

In this case, “custom” means firewalls made by pretty much any of the major vendors.

Cisco, Juniper, Fortinet and Palo Alto have a lot to answer for with their laziness. Cisco and Fortinet added support only recently. Palo and Juniper haven’t bothered at all.

reply
Even plain IIS still doesn't support ACME on Windows Server 2025 without you grabbing some random scripts off the Internet written by people you don't know.

But yeah a lot of Windows server software uses inbuilt web servers with no ability to tweak or tamper beyond what the application exposes in its own settings panel.

reply
That's why I suggested that a week of dev time woule be reasonable for automating the task.

I work in a multinational nightmare corp, we still have a mission critical Win95 machine.

reply
Certificate expiration notifications are a checkbox in uptime-kuma, which is itself incredibly easy to install and configure. We're not talking a week, we're talking a matter of minutes to go from zero to receiving notifications 21 days in advance of certificate or domain expiration.
reply