Tag: CA/B Forum

SSL/TLS certificate duration reduced to 45 days by 2027:Apple takes the first step

On October 9, Apple revealed to the CA/Browser Forum that it had posted a draft ballot for comment on GitHub regarding two important SSL/TLS certificate lifetime events:

  • Gradually reduce the maximum duration of public SSL/TLS certificates to 45 days by 2027;
     
  • Gradually reduce the reuse period for DCV challenges to 10 days by 2027.

In March 2023, in its “Moving Forward, Together” roadmap, Google announced its intention to offer the CA/B Forum a reduction on the maximum possible validity period for public TLS certificates going  from 398 days to 90 days. Since this announcement, the market has been feverishly awaiting for Google’s confirmation but most of all, for the implementation’s timetable… without success. For its part, Mozilla announced, a few weeks ago, its intention to follow Google’s lead on its Firefox browser, without adding any further detail.

Apple ultimately took the first step last week, announcing on October 9th its intention to both reduce the lifetime of certificates to 45 days (when the entire market was expecting 90 days) and to limit the duration of the DCV challenge to 10 days, according to the schedule below. A true bombshell:

Sep-15-2025 => certificates and DCV validation times reduced to 200 days

Sep-15-2026 => certificates and DCV validation times reduced to 100 days

Apr-15-2027 => certificates and DCV validation times reduced to 45 days

Sep-15-2027 => DCV Validation time: 10 days

Information on the background and analysis of this announcement, the expected outcomes and how to prepare for them will undoubtedly be useful:

Context and Analysis:

At this stage, the publication is likely to be commented by market players prior to the formal drafting of the ballot within the CA/B Forum, which itself will be voted on by its members: the Internet browser publishers on the one hand (Google, Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft…) and the Certification Authorities on the other. Amendments are bound to be made, but the general idea remains and the machine is up and running.

Indeed, software publishers are all aligned on the need to reduce the lifetime of certificates, and among Certification Authorities, Sectigo, one of the major players in the certificate industry, is already supporting the initiative. It is likely that things will move rapidly from now on, with few comments and a ballot drafted in the coming weeks or months. We will then know more about the confirmation of the durations and timetable, and will of course make sure to keep you informed.

Expected Outcomes:

  • Certificate lifetime: whether 90 days, 45 days or even less, this reduction is no longer a surprise, and will have a major impact on public certificate portfolio. The certificates can no longer be managed manually. The market has begun its transition to automation, notably through CLMs (Certificate Lifecycle Managers). The issue at stake for companies and organizations will be to rely on partners who can offer as many interconnections as possible between Organizations, Certification Authorities and CLMs.
     
  • DCV challenge duration: Reducing the duration of the DCV challenge to 10 days, if validated, would have a considerable impact, perhaps even more so than reducing the lifetime of certificates. Up until now, the industry has pre-validated domain names for 398 days, using the DCV challenge only once. Apple’s announcement would thus force the use of a DCV challenge for virtually all orders, which would be a major paradigm shift and would involve interconnections with an additional brick in the ecosystem: the DNS. The DCV (Domain Control Validation) challenge involves intervening in the zone of the domain name(s) listed in the certificate, ideally instantaneously, to validate it.
     
  • Organization authentication duration: Apple has not announced anything on the subject of the validity period of organization authentication for OV certificates, which is currently 825 days. However, rumors are circulating that this may be reduced to 398 days or even 365 days.

How to be ready:

The key to successful certificates management lies in automation. A 45 days certificate lifetime represents 9 interventions per year per certificate. Manual management thus becomes utopian. We therefore need to rely on:

  1. Certificate Provider/Certification Authority (CA): a trusted partner who will support through your organizational and domain authentication issues. Service level is key to good management. A multi-CA partner is thus recommended to limit dependence on a single CA, as in the case of Entrust’s recent setbacks. 
     
  2. Registrar / Primary DNS: mastering the primary DNS of domain names listed in certificates will become the key to delivery. Each time a certificate is issued, a TXT or CNAME will be installed on the zone(s) in question. An interconnection between the CA and the DNS is vital.
     
  3. CLM editor: the CLM’s role is to inventory the certificate portfolio, to define certificate portfolio management rules and automate the entire process of orders, from the generation of CSRs to the deployment of certificates on servers. To function properly, the CLM relies on connectors with CAs or certificate suppliers.

Getting ready thus means identifying the most suitable solution, based on these three dimensions, and undertaking this analysis to understand the impacts in terms of process, technology, and budget – in an ideal world – before the end of the first half of 2025.

Nameshield’s approach:

Nameshield holds a unique position in the market as a registrar and supplier of multi-AC certificates. For over 10 years, we have been managing the day-to-day issues associated with authenticating organizations and domains using certificates. On the one hand, we have a privileged relationship with the biggest CAs on the market (Digicert, Sectigo, GlobalSign), and on the other, we master the DNS brick for DCV validation. As a result, we can issue public certificates almost instantaneously. Last but not least, Nameshield has connectors with the major players in the CLM market, allowing you to ensure a comprehensive connection between the various components involved in certificate management. This way, we can support you in anticipating all the issues mentioned above.

SSL/TLS certificate duration reduced to 45 days by 2027:Apple takes the first step

For more information, please contact our Sales team or our Certificates team.

Crédit image : Nameshield with storyset.com

Apple announces the limitation of SSL certificates duration to 1 year in Safari

Apple Safari - SSL certifcates one year - Nameshield
Source de l’image : kropekk_pl via Pixabay

Apple announced this week that the maximum lifetime of SSL / TLS certificates on its devices and Safari browser would be limited to 398 days (1 year, and 1 month to cover the renewal period). The change, announced by Apple at the CA / Browser Forum meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, will take effect for certificates issued after August 31, 2020.

Apple’s announcement follows a failure of the CA / B Forum’s vote on one-year certificates (Bulletin SC22), which was held in August 2019, and reflects a continuing trend to shorten lifespan certificates. Following this vote, Google had also expressed its intention to reduce certificate lifetime outside the framework of the CA / B forum if they do not position themselves quickly. This announcement is a bit of a surprise, we would rather have thought that Google or Mozilla would take the first step.

What are the consequences for companies and their SSL / TLS certificates?

Is shorter validity a good thing?

The shorter the validity period of a certificate, the more secure the certificate. By requiring replacement of certificates over a shorter period of time, security updates are made to certificates, they deploy faster. The shorter private key lifetime of a certificate is also a strong recommendation from online security players to limit the potential duration of fraud following a compromise.

From a security perspective, everyone agrees that reducing the life of certificates is a good thing. The problem lies on the operational side with the consequences of this reduction being: more frequent intervention on certificates, therefore greater complexity in keeping an up to date inventory and the need for optimal organization with partners for certificate issuance.

Should Apple’s announcement be taken into account?

Safari is one of the two main web browsers, with 17.7% in January 2020, behind Google Chrome (58.2%) and ahead of Microsoft Internet Explorer and Edge (7.1%). It is difficult to ignore the announcement as it will affect 1/5 of Internet users, what is more is that if Google does follow, it is better to anticipate and prepare. Nameshield’s has already adopted this stance.

Things to keep in mind

Certificates issued before September 1, 2020 are not affected by this change. They will remain valid for the entire two-year period. All certificates issued on or after September 1 must be renewed each year to be considered reliable by Safari.

We must therefore prepare to move towards having certificates with a maximum duration of one year compared to the current two years. Being able to rely on a partner and effective tools is more essential than ever.

Towards the end of the correlation between authentication and technical certificate management

What seems to be taking shape within the CA / B Forum is the idea of allowing an authentication duration identical to that which we know today (two years) while forcing the certificates to be replaced several times during this same period.

The main Certification Authorities, the bodies that issue certificates, anticipate these changes and are working on several automation systems to manage certificate life cycle. They would thus limit the need to go through a potentially cumbersome re-authentication procedure with each replacement. Companies could replace their certificates as many times as they want during this period. This would make it possible to anticipate possible further reductions in the maximum lifetime of certificates.

The trend is also towards the installation of automation tools for the maintenance of a precise inventory of certificates on the one hand and technical reinstallation on the other. Nameshield is closely monitoring these various developments and will allow you to continue working with confidence.

Our team is also at your disposal to anticipate these changes and answer any questions you may have.

2020 and the SSL, a small prediction exercise

Browsers and Certification Authorities, the battle continues.

Cybersecurity - SSL 2020 - Nameshield Blog
Image source : TheDigitalArtist via Pixabay

2019 was a busy year, with growing differences of opinion between browsers makers and Certification Authorities, an explosion in the number of phishing sites encrypted in HTTPS and significant progress on the depreciation of TLS v1.0.

Discussions on extended validation, more generally the visual display of certificates in browsers, and the reduction of the duration of certificates have taken a prominent place. None of these discussions are over, no consensus seems to be emerging, 2020 is looking like a busy year. Time to look ahead…

Will the fate of Extended Validation be determined?

2019 saw the main browsers stop displaying the famous green address bar with the padlock and the name of the company, in favor of a classic and unique display, no longer taking into account the authentication level of the certificates:

SSL 2020 - EV certificate - Nameshield

However, discussions are still ongoing at the CA/B forum level, as well as within the CA Security Council. Both of these certificates regulatory bodies will be looking in 2020 for an intuitive way to display identity information of websites.

Historically approved by everyone, including the financial industry and websites with transactions, EV (the acronym for Extended Validation) was Google’s target in 2019. Other browsers, under the influence of Google, between Mozilla financed by Google and Microsoft and Opera based on Chromium open source, have followed in this direction. Only Apple continues to display EV.

For browsers, the question is whether or not TLS is the best way to present the authentication information of websites. It seems that it is not. Google assumes that it is not up to Certification Authorities to decide the legitimate content of a website and wants the use of certificates for encryption purposes only.

Of course, the Certification Authorities see things differently. One can certainly see a purely mercantile reaction, EV certificates are much more expensive. One can also wonder about the purpose of authentication beyond encryption. The answer seems to lie in the staggering statistics of phishing websites encrypted with HTTPS. Browsers have for the moment imposed an encrypted web indeed… but no longer authenticated!

2020 will therefore be the year of proposals from Certification Authorities: providing better authentication, including identification of legal entities, following the path of PSD2 in Europe… One thing is certain, identity has never been so important on the Internet and it is up to all interested parties to find a solution, including browsers to find a way to display strong authentication of websites. To be continued…

Certificates with a shorter duration: towards one-year certificates

825 days, or 27 months, or 2 years, the maximum duration currently allowed for SSL Certificates. However, since 2017 and a first attempt within the CA/B forum, the industry is moving towards a reduction of this duration to 13 months (1 additional month to cover the renewal period).

Google and browsers came back in 2019 with another vote submitted to the CA/B forum, again rejected but by a smaller majority. The market is on the move. Players like Let’sEncrypt propose certificates with a duration of 3 months, others want to keep long durations to avoid overloads of intervention on servers. One thing is certain, the market does not have the automation systems in place yet to make the management and installation of certificates easier, a delay of one or two more years would otherwise be preferable, or at least judicious.

But all this is without counting on Google threatening to act unilaterally if the regulator does not follow… certainly in 2020.

From TLS 1.0 to TLS 1.3: forced advance

Expected in January 2020, Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, Google and Cloudflare have announced their intention to depreciate support for TLS 1.0 (a protocol created in 1999 to succeed SSL 3.0, which has become highly exposed) and TLS 1.1 (2006), both of which are currently suffering from too much exposure to security flaws.

While TLS 1.2 (2008) is still considered secure today, the market seems to be pushing for TLS 1.3, the most recent version of the standard, finally released in the summer of 2018. TLS 1.3 abandons support for weak algorithms (MD4, RC4, DSA or SHA-224), allows negotiation in fewer steps (faster), and reduces vulnerability to fallback attacks. Simply put, it is the most secure protocol.

A small problem, however, is that many websites are taking action. At the beginning of 2019, only 17% of the Alexa Top 100,000 websites supported TLS 1.3, while just under 23% (22,285) did not even support TLS 1.2 yet. If the decision to depreciate older versions of the protocol is a good one, the form adopted by the major web players can be criticized, in particular by its unilateral nature. In the meantime, get ready, we are heading there.

The threat of quantum computing

Companies are talking more and more about quantum computing, including Google. But the reality is, while quantum will impact our industry, it certainly won’t be in 2020, or for at least a decade. There are still many questions that need to be answered, such as: What is the best algorithm for quantum resistance? No one has that answer, and until there is a consensus in the industry, you are not going to see any quantum solutions in place.

IoT is growing, but the lack of security remains a problem

IoT is a success, but a number of deployments are being delayed due to a lack of security. In 2020, cloud service providers will provide or partner with security companies to provide a secure provisioning and management of devices, as well as an overall secure IoT ecosystem, for their customers.

The regulatory frameworks for IoT manufacturing and deployments will most certainly be led by the EU, although we will also see an increase in the US. Attacks, compromises and IoT hacking will, unfortunately, continue. In addition, security standards will not be met and we will not even come close to a higher percentage of secure devices. Why is that? Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are still not willing to pay the costs involved or pass them on to consumers for fear of losing sales.

China’s encryption laws will create a lot of uncertainty

In recent years, part of the digital transformation of the world has led to the codification of rights and restrictions on data in national laws and regional organizations. PSD2, GDPR, CCPA, PIPEDA… a real headache for international companies faced with regulatory standards and compliance.

On January 1, 2020, China’s encryption law was due to come into force. An additional data and… still unclear to those doing business in China. Clarification is still needed on several fronts. For example, commercial encryption for international companies must be approved and certified before it can be used in China – but this certification system has not yet been created. Similarly, there is uncertainty about the key escrow and the data that must be made available to the Chinese government. This has led to a wave of speculation, misinformation and, ultimately, overreaction. Given the opacity of parts of the new Regulation, many companies are opting for a wait-and-see approach. This is a wise tactic, assuming your organization does not have an experienced Chinese legal expert.

In conclusion, the certificates industry continues to change. Nameshield’s certificates team is at your disposal to discuss all these topics.

Best wishes for 2020.