• technology transfer, science communication, knowledge transfer
  • articles, white papers, reports, manuals, FAQs, e-learning
  • market research, analysis, reporting
  • scripting, scraping, visualization
  • ICT specialist journalism productions, media training
  • tech community engagement
  • event programme management

Adrian Offerman is a computer engineer by origin, and has been working in technology transfer, science communication, knowledge transfer, and ICT specialist journalism for almost thirty years now.
His customers are Fortune Global 500 companies as well as specialized/niche firms, publishing houses, governmental agencies, scientific research institutes, and technology companies.
Most of his work involves open-source software and hardware, computer and network security, applied cryptography, internet technology and disruptive innovation.

Managing TLS certificates has become pretty crazy: Over the years validity was cut down from several years to two years to one year to half a year now. In a few years it will be only a little more than one month, with the additional requirement to basically continuously prove domain control.

Since I'm not using Let's Encrypt over here, these days I have to re-submit a CSR to my certificate provider every half a year for every domain, prove domain ownership, install the new certificate (chain), and update my DANE/TLSA records. Soon continuous domain control validation will have to be added as an additional secondary process to the domain reactivation/renewal process.

Certificate providers willing to help their customers automate these "industry-mandated" processes suggest setting DNS records referring to their systems for everything dynamic, or handing over DNS management to them completely.

Forcing users to automate their certificate management is one thing — it admittedly will make WebPKI safer — still we should never have allowed Big Internet — in this case Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the other browser builders — to take control of the public internet certificate infrastructure. After making self-signed certificates practically useless, everyone has now been brought under their regime and has been forced onto their highly centralized Certificate Transparency (CT) infrastructure.

The CT infrastructure, however, is a patch rather than a structural solution for the issues with rogue certificates, a problem made far worse by the highly centralized WebPKI that fails to compartmentalize different chains of trust.

Even though the use of self-signed certificates pinned with a DANE/TLSA record probably is a closed chapter now — browser builders declined to support it due to lagging DNSSEC adoption — I still think it's a better (additional) solution, especially for non-enterprise users wanting to manage their own domains and hosts. Furthermore, it keeps control over domains, certificates and pins where it naturally belongs: locally in the distributed DNS hierarchy.

Add comment

Security code Refresh

Submit