Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TLS Expiration Times aren't Cloud Native #137

Closed
benr opened this issue Feb 28, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

TLS Expiration Times aren't Cloud Native #137

benr opened this issue Feb 28, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@benr
Copy link
Member

benr commented Feb 28, 2023

case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 150: score(100);

The TLS Baseline policy specifes the following scores for ages:

        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 150: score(100);
        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 120: score(70);
        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 90: score(50);
        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 60: score(20);
        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 30: score(9);
        default: score(0);

These expiration assume a traditional PKI with 1year or longer certificate lifecycles which aren't common any longer. Thanks to cloud certificate managers, such as Google Cert Manager and Lets Encrypt use a 90 day certificate which is renewed at the 30 day mark, see:

"Google Cloud provisions managed certificates valid for 90 days. About one month before expiry, the process to renew your certificate automatically begins."

Therefore I propose a new scheme:

        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 30: score(100);
        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 21: score(50);
        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 7: score(20);
        case tls.certificates.first.expiresIn.days > 7: score(9);
        default: score(0);
@benr benr self-assigned this Feb 28, 2023
@benr
Copy link
Member Author

benr commented Feb 28, 2023

@atomic111 I'd value your input on this proposal.

@atomic111
Copy link
Member

@benr good point. i will update it

atomic111 added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2023
Signed-off-by: Patrick Münch <patrick.muench1111@gmail.com>
@tas50 tas50 closed this as completed in 05ea68a Feb 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants