hachyderm.io is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Hachyderm is a safe space, LGBTQIA+ and BLM, primarily comprised of tech industry professionals world wide. Note that many non-user account types have restrictions - please see our About page.

Administered by:

Server stats:

9.7K
active users

#certificates

1 post1 participant0 posts today
Replied in thread

@dianasusanti : very good! It would help if more people did that.

Of course "avast-pdq dot com" sounds weird, but these scammers also had: (or still have, I'm not sure):

avast-antivirus dot com

(see virustotal.com/gui/domain/avas).

HOWEVER: it is too hard for most people and simply insufficient. There are a lot of fake webshops, of whom you don't know the domain name in advance.

A domain name is a *unique* identification (good!) but it does *not* identify (bad!) who is responsible for a website.

Certificates *used* to provide that information, but Big Tech insisted on "simpler", in fact anonymous, certificates - as can be seen below. There is *no* information regarding the owner of the website, including their country of jurisdiction.

We were used to visit shops in streets. It is extremely hard to run a fake physical shop (or bank with a counter and employees), while it is incredibly easy to create an anonymous website that may mimic everything the scammers want.

Perhaps there were more scammers on pasars (markets) because a new salesperson can appear any day - possibly without permits. Doing that in an actual building is harder.

P.S. a site to look up certificates is crt.sh (example: crt.sh/?q=google-ivi.com).

Why I Understand Hoarders

To be clear, I am not a hoarder. I have downsized more often than I can count and I regularly donate items to the thrift store. At the same time, I have some things that are very hard to dispose of.

This week, my focus is on the artwork created by my late husband. He was very talented at drawing and painting and he occupied a lot of his work time and personal time being creative. Some of his works are excellent, some are okay, and some are . . . well, not great. That’s what the creative life is like. Variable.

At some point, I forwarded some of his best works to family members and friends so that they all could have a creative remembrance of him. But even after that, I still have a lot of drawings, paintings, and notes to make decisions about.

There are some excellent pieces, some okay pieces, and some not-so-great pieces that all occupy a space in my apartment, and I don’t know what to do with it all. The not-knowing is the hard part. I emailed my children to see if they wanted any of it, and they declined. So, the choices are left to me but they are not easy choices.

When I mentioned my dilemma to a friend she shared her own question about what to do with her late husband’s many award plaques that were of value to him, and appreciated by those who loved him, but otherwise not destined for display.

How do you dispose of artwork, or certificates of excellence, or plaques for awards, when their recipient has passed on? They all belong in the category of too-extraneous-to keep-but-too-good-to-trash, and they cannot easily be thrown in a dumpster.

As such, today I chose a compromise. I met with a photographer who specializes in artwork to have some of my husband’s illustrations digitized. Many decades ago my husband created two books for children on watercolour paper, but they were never published. Since then they have languished in a portfolio which has been relocated multiple times and now sits under my guest-room bed.

When I showed the pages to the photographer we discussed how best to deal with the stains from moisture, the leaching from adjacent pages, and warping. We were talking about many decades of neglect. Ultimately, though, he thought that he and his computer could do them justice. I will be interested to see what he comes up with.

The question I am still left with now, though, is what I should do with the originals.  I don’t know if I am capable of putting them in the garbage containers in my apartment building. I don’t even know if I could put them in the paper recycling bin. Does anyone know? Perhaps they are just trash. Either way, I think I’ll simply ask the photographer to do it. I might even pay him to do it. That’s a good hoarder’s solution, don’t you think?

New 6-days Validity of Let’s Encrypt Certificates

I just saw this great news: Let’s Encrypt Announces 6-day Validity Certificates

Let’s Encrypt, the non-profit certificate authority, has introduced six-day validity certificates, commonly referred to as short-lived certificates.

Shorter validity periods are great for security. Traditional certificates can last up to a year, meaning if they get compromised, they remain a threat for a long […]

locked.de/new-6-days-validity-
#Certificates #LetsEncrypt #Security

The IT Blog · New 6-days Validity of Let's Encrypt CertificatesI just saw this great news: Let's Encrypt Announces 6-day Validity Certificates Let’s Encrypt, the non-profit certificate authority, has introduced six-day validity certificates, commonly referred to as short-lived certificates. Shorter validity periods are great for security. Traditional ce
Replied in thread

@epicenter_works

I believe one should not be promoting biometrics for #authentication.

It is also questionable whether no longer being able to create #pseudonymous accounts is desirable, once service providers are no longer offering accounts except under terms that mandate non-repudiation – or, in other words, enforce signups with credentials that are linked to your real identity. It's their choice, and you can't force them not to make it, once the infrastructue is in place, and widely used.

Another problem that keeps being ignored: there's no "Let's encrypt" for digital IDs. You need to spend money, periodically, on creating and renewing #certificates. Even if your country gives you a free option, it'll be one that links to your real identity, as well.

@jwijnings : community-based klinkt leuk, maar ik vrees dat dit niet werkt in de praktijk: criminelen zullen er *alles* aan doen om hun sites positief te laten scoren.

PGP is niet voor niets totaal niet schaalbaar gebleken, en criminelen hebben public keys op naam van anderen op publieke keyservers geplaatst - waar de mensen met die namen *niets* tegen kunnen doen.

En een browser-plugin is véél te vrijwillig, dat wordt niks.

Linksom of rechtsom ontkom je er m.i. niet aan om één of meer derde partijen (certificaatuitgevers) te vertrouwen, die (meer of minder betrouwbaar) de identiteit van verantwoordelijken voor websites vaststellen (maar dit moet je beslist niet aan big tech zelf overlaten, zoals nu gebeurt).

De "community" (betrouwbare daaruit, en/of objectieve auditors) zouden vervolgens herhaaldelijk moeten vaststellen hoe betrouwbaar elke *CERTIFICAAT-UITGEVER* is.

• Van elke website waarvan de verantwoordelijke ANONIEM is, moeten browsers dit klip en klaar aangeven (en bij doorklikken op de risico's wijzen.

• Van elke website waarvan de verantwoordelijke NIET anoniem is, moeten browsers het volgende klip en klaar aangeven:

1) wie de verantwoordelijke is

2) hoe betrouwbaar de identiteit van de verantwoordelijke is vastgesteld

3) hoe betrouwbaar de certificaatverstrekker door "de community" voor het laatst werd beoordeeld, wanneer en door wie.

En dit alles met eenvoudig vindbare uitgebreide en duidelijke toeliching waar de internetter rekening mee moet houden, inclusief dat een https websitecertificaat *NIETS* zegt over de betrouwbaarheid van die site en diens eigenaar, maar wel dat je weet HOE BETROUWBAAR je weet WIE DE VERANTWOORDELIJKE is.

Alle info over de verantwoordelijke hoeft niet bij elk bezoek in je gezicht te worden gedrukt, maar in elk geval bij het eerste bezoek van een domeinnaam, en bij elke certificaatswijziging. Geo-info over het actuele IP-adres (vestigingsland) kan ook zinvol zijn.

Om dit effectief uit de grond te stampen, moet de EU elke browsermaker verplichten om dit te faciliteren. Zonder dwang wordt het niks.

P.S. ik weet nu ook een phishing domeinnaam met "google" er in, die zich afgelopen jaar achter Cloudflare verstopte - en was voorzien van een door GOOGLE uitgegeven certificaat.

Het kan big tech echt geen ruk schelen.

De meeste mensen zien het niet, maar met een beetje zoeken ontdek je al snel dat we, bij het internetten, aan het koorddansen zijn - zonder evenwichtsstok en zonder valbescherming.

Via een domeinnaam in blog.sekoia.io/targeted-supply vond ik weer een hele reeks IP-adressen in de US en FR met bergen nepsites, met o.a. waadaardige Chrome extensies zoals hieronder te zien is (uit virustotal.com/gui/domain/chat):

Google is kwaadaardig

Extreem zelfs, zij hosten -zonder blikken of blozen- zelfs phishingwebsites met de volgende URL's (ik heb ".com" vervangen door "·com", met "hoge" punt, en de '/' door '⧸', om onbedoeld openen te voorkómen):

https:⧸⧸helpdesk-google·com
https:⧸⧸cancel-google·com
https:⧸⧸adsupport-google·com

Veel meer info in security.nl/posting/872651/htt.

Edit 15:14: ik zie dat de redactie van security.nl mijn artikel heeft verwijderd (tot zover vrijheid van meningsuiting). Ik had het artikel gearchiveerd: archive.is/3UwWn.

I have to have addons.mozilla.org access API key to sign an extension I will only use by myself, so I can not enable enabling unsigned extensions.

IMO this is what the enforcing of only either a CA based approach or an insecure approach, kicking out the self-signed option, leads to (yes, I am referring to TLS certificates).