HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
cabforum
servercert
Web Development2016–2026
cabforum / servercert

servercert

Repository for the CA/Browser Forum Server Certificate Chartered Working Group

Web DevelopmentSystems & InfrastructureCommunication & Social
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
13Distinct people
19Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
241GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Repository for the CA/Browser Forum Server Certificate Chartered Working Group

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

Except it's not actually true. https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/clients.html highlights that many clients support standard SSL features without having to update to fix bugs. How…

lstamour used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 2:59:53 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year19 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-05-27 04:13:48 UTC to 2026-02-18 02:31:50 UTC.

02462016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 3 submissions, 3 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC633
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
agwa·Aug 30, 2021
No, they don't have to MitM the CA's domain validation request. While they have brief control over the website, they use domain validation method 3.2.2.4.18 (Agreed-Upon Change to Website v2)[1] or 3.2.2.4.19 (Agreed-Upon Change to Website - ACME)[2] to legitimately complete domain validation by making a change to the website. Due to domain validation reuse[3], the certificate doesn't have to be issued right away. The attacker can wait and request the certificate up to 398 days later, without having to do domain validation again. [1] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/cda0f92ee70121fd... [2] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/cda0f92ee70121fd... [3] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/cda0f92ee70121fd...
In MarkMonitor left 60k domains for the taking
achew22·Mar 24, 2021
The article you linked to is kind of confused and I'm not sure I blame them. This stuff is really complex! According to the proposal[0], leaf certificates are prohibited from being signed with a validity window of more than 397 days by a CA/B[1] compliant Certificate authority. This is very VERY different from the cert not being valid. It means that a CA could absolutely make you a certificate that violated these rules. If a CA signed a certificate with a longer window, they would risk having their root CA removed from the CA/B trust store which would make their root certificate pretty much worthless. To validate this, you can look at the CA certificates that Google has[2] that are set to expire in 2036 (scroll down to "Download CA certificates" and expand the "Root CAs" section) several of which have been issued since that CA/B governanc
Read the rest
e change. As of right now, as far as I know, Chrome will continue to trust certificates that are signed with a larger window. I've not heard anything about browsers enforcing validity windows or anything like that, but would be delighted to find out the ways that I'm wrong if you can point me to a link. Further, your home made root certificate will almost certainly not be accepted by CA/B into their trust store (and it sounds like you wouldn't want that) which means you're not bound by their governance. Feel free to issue yourself a certificate that lasts 1000 years and certifies that you're made out of marshmallows or whatever you want. As long as you install the public part of the CA into your devices it'll work great and your phone/laptop/whatever will be 100% sure you're made out of puffed sugar. I guess I have to disclose that I'm an xoogler who worked on certificate issuance infrastructure and that this is my opinion, that my opinons are bad and I should feel bad :zoidberg:. [0] https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/pull/138/commits/2b06... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CA/Browser_Forum [2] https://pki.goog/repository/
In Chrome’s address bar will use https:// by default

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.