this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
47 points (96.1% liked)

Selfhosted

39435 readers
1 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello friends,

Just about every guide that comes up on my Google search for "How to create certificate authority with OpenSSL" seems to be out-of-date. Particularly, they all guide me towards creating a certificate that gets rejected by the browser due to the "Common Name" field deprecation, and the requirement of "Subject Alternative Name" field.

Does someone know a tool that creates a Certificate Authority and signs certificates with that CA? A tool that follows modern standards, gets accepted by browsers and other common web tools. Preferably something based on OpenSSL.

If you know a guide that does this using OpenSSL, even better! But I have low hopes for this after going through dozens of guides all having the same issue I mentioned above.

Replies to Some Questions you Might Ask Me

Why not just correct those two fields you mention?

I want to make sure I am doing this right. I don't want to keep running into errors in the future. For example, I actually did try that, and npm CLI rejected my certs without a good explanation (through browser accepts it).

Why not Let's Encrypt?

This is for private services that are only accessible on a private network or VPN

If this is for LAN and VPN only services, why do you need TLS?

TLS still has benefits. Any device on the same network could still compromise the security of the communication without TLS. Examples: random webcam or accessory at your house, a Meta Quest VR headset, or even a compromised smartphone or computer.

Use small step CA (or other ACME tools)

I am not sure I want the added complexity of this. I only have 2 services requiring TLS now, and I don't believe I will need to scale that much. I will have setup a way to consume the ACME server. I am happier with just a tool that spits out the certificates and I manage them that way, instead of a whole service for managing certs.

If I am over estimating the difficulty for this, please correct me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Did you install the certificates at all the appropriate locations?

No certs like that will ever be recognized by browsers by default. You need to add your CA to your browser, and also every other applicable certificate stores. Usually that'd be /usr/share/ca-certificates or command line flags to explicitly define the chain of trust (for example, curl --cacert), or sometimes environment variables like SSL_CERT_FILE.

Also if you have an intermediate CA and only trust the root CA, the intermediate certificate needs to be bundled with the server's certificate so the browser can trace the chain of trust all the way to something it already trusts (ie. your root CA).

That's kind of a rabbit hole on its own since it varies from software to software how it's done, and also OS to OS. On Mac for example, that's managed through Keychain.