this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
128 points (93.8% liked)

Selfhosted

62187 readers
777 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know that I can simply make my own private certificate authority that only I and my family trust. But is there some public provider like letsencrypt that is in a free-er part of the world than the US?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 minutes ago

Let's encrypt is very transparent and has been designed to be auditable. What are you worried about exactly?

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Simi-related fun fact.

The biggest contributor to TOR is the CIA. They funded it's creation and are primarily responsible for maintaining it to this day.

The CIA maintains TOR as a way for spies to pass information over the internet. They make it public because if only spies used TOR it would be trivial to catch them. So it's in their interest that it be public and secure. It's open source and security experts agree you can trust it.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 24 minutes ago

Lost Lemmings?

[–] plyth@feddit.org 4 points 1 hour ago

The CIA, not navy intelligence?

The core principle of Tor, known as onion routing, was developed in the mid-1990s by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees, mathematician Paul Syverson, and computer scientists Michael G. Reed and David Goldschlag, to protect American intelligence communications online.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(network)

[–] talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

What risk are you trying to mitigate, specifically?

If it's the CA taking over your site, control over your CA specifically doesn't really give any advantage to an attacker (they would have to hijack traffic and provide a new certificate - nobody will notice if the certificate is from a different CA).

Note that your CA cannot decrypt the exchanges between your server and its clients.

[–] IpsumLauren@lemmy.world 1 points 48 minutes ago (3 children)

It opens the possibility of a man-in-the-middle attack.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 points 10 minutes ago* (last edited 7 minutes ago)

Edit: no, it doesn't. Looking at the comments below, it's public key crypto.

Original comment:

The problem is that if that is your threat model, then the VPS provider, ISP, and literally everything between you and letsencrypt can pull a conpromised key fro letsencrypt.

This actually happened btw, an xmpp server was attacked this way, they compromised not the server itself, but the VPS provider MITMed their traffic: https://www.devever.net/~hl/xmpp-incident

If your threat model involves this, then the only solution is Tor, which eliminates these requirements of trust.

[–] talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago

Yep, that's what I described and any CA accepted by the client can do it

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 34 minutes ago (2 children)

which is still there if you are not using lets encrypt, because they can strongarm them to make a fake cert for your domain, and install a proxy repackaging HTTPS traffic with the fake certificate. all browsers trust the lets encrypt root certificate, so they won't see anything suspicious.

the only thing there today to detect this (but not avoid) is certificate transparency logs. all modern certificates are required to be added to this log, for the CA to remain compliant. but browsers are not checking the logs, that would be a lot of additional traffic and how do they decide if a certificate was created maliciously? also, lets encrypt could afford being noncompliant, browser vendors can't realistically just distrust their root certificate, many sites would become inaccessible.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 48 seconds ago

Maybe I'm mistaken but aren't the logs cryptography verifiable? (As in you can't create a rouge cert without it creating a trace)

[–] IpsumLauren@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Oh snap! That definitely sounds possible. Found more info about it.

tl;dr: Either the attack is ineffective against some browsers that check the certificate transparency logs (like Chrome), or the attack is visible and the CA will lose all its credibility (hopefully being removed from the browsers).

[–] Mihies@programming.dev 0 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

Are you sure they can't decrypt? They have your certificate after all. Besides, if the Orange has a bad day, he can ban certificates export or just for a single company or individual.

[–] talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

They don't have your private key

Yes, the private key never leaves your machine.

You send them a certificate signing request with your public key, they put their verification stamp on it and send it to you.

The only part they have to play is verifying that your certificate is trusted by a root certificate.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The CA cannot decypt: they don't have the secret key which only the server has. When requesting a new certificate from the CA, the server generated a secret key (aka private key) and then generated a derived public key that goes into a Certificate Signing Request (CSR). The CSR is what the CA receives, not the secret key, and then the CA returns the certificate file to the server, which has been endorsed by the CA and thus trusted by the user base.

Phrased another way, a certificate is the instrument that confirms that a purported public key can in-fact be safely used, and that no MITM attack is happening (assuming you trust the CA that signed the cert). But once you've confirmed the public key, the rest of the cryptography is public key cryptography, meaning the secrecy of the secret key is the whole game.

[–] Decronym@lemmy.decronym.xyz 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 6 minutes ago)

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters More Letters
CA (SSL) Certificate Authority
DNS Domain Name Service/System
ISP Internet Service Provider
VPS Virtual Private Server (opposed to shared hosting)

4 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 7 acronyms.

[Thread #107 for this comm, first seen 19th Sep 2026, 15:40] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

[–] IpsumLauren@lemmy.world 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

First let's identify what parts of the world are free-er than the US (for a certificate).

Malta or Cyprus maybe? My first thought is places where dodgy people do dodgy shit, like gambling.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

is it possible to get the eff to move elsewhere?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] diecknet@discuss.tchncs.de 60 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

There are some commercial Certificate Authorities that offer free certificates. But in contrast Let's Encrypt is a non-profit.

  • ZeroSSL (Austria)
  • Actalis (Italy)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

commercial

free certificates

How do they make money?

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Usually they make money with extended certificates where they not only offer a certificate for example.com but also certify that it belongs to Example Ltd.

Those extended certificates used to show the company name next to address bars, but I don't think browsers do that anymore.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

a certificate for example.com

also certify that it belongs to Example Ltd.

I thought that was the whole point of a certificate, to show that the website belongs to the company? Or nah?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 26 minutes ago

It's actually to prove that a web server belongs to (or is trusted by for delivering their content) a specific website.

qualified certificates go a step further, by proving that a web server belongs to a specific company or a real person. but that's costly, because verification is inherently more difficult.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 3 points 52 minutes ago (1 children)

Nah, the point is to encrypt the traffic and tell you what you are receiving really comes from example.com and not an evil third party.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 38 minutes ago

Ah, right. That's the primary purpose, thank you for the reminder! 🙏

[–] pdl@social.tchncs.de 18 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

@Sibbo I do not see any problem with Letsencrypt. Any CA which is widely trusted has to follow the same rules. This rules are set up by the CA Browser Forum. Which metadata does LE collect? My server's IP address, domain and subdomain, mail address. These are logged in the CT logs. Every CA has to log all certificates in a public CT log. Regardless which CA I choose, these data are public. There are not any critical data or metadata that LE can collect.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 minutes ago

Actually the problem is that they are too widespread. if something happened, and they started creating fake certificates, for outside force or otherwise, they can't just be blocked because literally half of the internet or more breaks. what's worse, if browser vendors trued that, people would be downgrading their browser to the last version accepting it, and become exposed to publicly revealed security vulnerabilities. not all because its a bit complicated, but enough would do to have it cause an even greater problem.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 14 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Letsencrypt can be directly forced to revoke certificates by the US. Organisations outside of the US are less vulnerable against that.

[–] IpsumLauren@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago

That would be just a nuisance until a new certificate is generated with another vendor (possibly not for free, but cheap enough).

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

And ICAAN can hand your domain over to US law enforcement regardless of the TLD and your register.

Is that also part of your decision tree?

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 hours ago

Is this accurate? Like, I know what you're meaning, but I'm pretty sure it's not ICANN doing it, and more so your domain registrar handing it over to the US government.

I think the most control that ICANN has over it is they could theoretically, if they wanted to, delete an entire top level domain. Since they do control the DNS root, but that is the most that they control from what I understand.

I don't know if they have the ability to delete or transfer control over an individual domain on legal request. I think that's outside of what their actual system allows for.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe it should be! We need non-fascis-adjacent DNS roots.

[–] libewa@feddit.org 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

ICANN can (theoretically) not force anyone to deregister your domain. If your stack is all outside the US, and everyone collectively decided to disobey the US, the Internet's decentralization would be true.

The hard part about building a decentralized network is finding out where to hide the centralization.

For the Internet, the centralization is hidden in the IP block and DNS Zone delegation. After this is done, that region is decentralized. A/I's problem was that the registry for .org is a subsidiary of IANA. With EU servers, EU DNS and a EU domain, EU clients cannot be prevented from connecting solely from the outside. The US would need a collaborator.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago

That is all well and good, but we have many instances of domains being pulled from people because of court ruling and your register is not going to defy a court ruling for your €17/year domain.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago

Aren't the .country domains managed by the countries?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 23 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

This is why I never even started using Letsencrypt; looking at the fine print, you actually enter into some kind of contract with some US entity, which I don't want even if it's the coolest of all FOSS foundations.

Here's a site that has some info:
https://www.eurotoolkit.eu/categories/certificate-authority-ca
I have used certum.pl for years and it looks like I might go back to them soon because my VPS provider doesn't offer bundled certs anymore.

I used to pay €40/year iirc.
I suspect it's gotten more expensive though.

edit:
oh looks like ZeroSSL are doing it letsencrypt-style with Acme protocol for €0.

edit2:
No, not more expensive. Some of the providers in the above link are labyrinthine and I couldn't even find a Pricing section - usually a sign that it's too expensive at least for a normal consumer - but others offer yearly certs for as little as €30 (taxes not included).

edit3:
Yeah some people are going to have a hard time accepting that a contract with a for-profit company under EU jurisdiction might be preferable to a contract with a non-profit under US jurisdiction.

[–] state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

ZeroSSL costs 180 per year for unlimited 90 day certs. I get the independence from US-based services, but I don't want to drop that kind of money on my toy domains.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 1 points 46 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago)

I think you misunderstood something there; they're very explicitely offering free certs.

I just went 90% through the process (I might need them anyhow later this year), it's like this:
What you say is a PRO feature, unlimited certs with one account, is not meant as "unlimited in time" but "unlimited number of certs at any given time".

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 21 points 6 hours ago (7 children)

I've been using ZeroSSL for over 5 years and can attest that they are friendly in that I have literally never seen or heard from them.

I've set up and cancelled multiple domains in this time, and have had one domain running for the entirety of my time with ZeroSSL.

I don't think you (OP) are gonna find much better than a for-profit business with a good track record if you're unwilling to use Letsencrypt.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 22 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think anyone is gonna solve that problem until it's actually a problem.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I don't think anyone's going to solve the problem in general, to be honest.

Like, Let's Encrypts goal is super novel, but also expensive as shit to actually run, and requires a lot of coordination because it needs to be a trust authority. If this ever happened, it would probably be at the backing of some government structure, because I don't see many people wanting to jump at that as an expense.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›