Microsoft Exchange Server and
Blackberry Enterprise Server news, views and fixes.
A constant theme on many of the Internet forums is the use of self generated SSL certificates versus purchased SSL certificates, particularly when deploying RPC over HTTPS or Outlook Web Access.
Many people will advocate that using a self generated certificate is fine and will do the job.
This could be a certificate generated from the selfssl.exe tool that is supplied with the IIS Resource Kit, or Microsoft's certificate application.
However I am not one of them, and always deploy Exchange with a purchased certificate.
Use of SSL Certificates
SSL Certificates have two main tasks.
- To prove that the server you are accessing is the server that you meant to access.
- To encrypt the connection between the application being used to access the server, and the server itself.
There are three things that your web browser looks for when accessing a secure site.
- that the name on the certificate matches the address being accessed
- the certificate is issued by someone the browser trusts, or the certificate matches one already installed on the web browser
- the certificate is valid.
If any of those three fail, then you will get a warning message popup.
With self generated certificates, you will get the warning message when you access the server. This is because the certificate hasn't been issued by a trusted authority.
You can get round that warning message by importing the certificate in to the web browser. However that makes a lot of work with deployment, complicates matters and also means that you have to repeat the exercise when the certificates expires.
It also doesn't help when people are accessing your site from a public computer where you cannot install the certificate, such as an internet café or their machine at home.
And that is where self generated certificates start to cause problems.
You can tell your users to ignore the message when connecting to your site, but users have a habit of only hearing what they want to hear. They will hear "ignore the message" but forget the bit "when using our site". In these days of phishing and spoof web sites network administrators need to give out a consistent message - and telling users to ignore a security warning is a very example of failing to do that.
A security warning of any kind looks unprofessional and shows a lack of concern for security.
So what are the alternatives?
The best alternative is to purchase an SSL certificate.
However many administrators think that they need to go to one of the big SSL certificate issuers such as Verisign and pay US$400 or more per year - and that is just for a 40 bit certificate.
That is not the case.
I do my deployments using RapidSSL certificates. They cost US$69 per year and that is for a 128bit certificate. Their root certificate is in most of the popular web browsers so there is no complication there.
If you do need to deploy the certificates to Pocket PC devices, then that can be easily done (see http://www.amset.info/pocketpc/certificates.asp).
You could also certificates from Certificates for Exchange which are trusted by Windows Mobile 5.0 with MSFP and higher. Nothing to install on the devices making deployment easy.
You may also see some "free" SSL certificates around. These should be looked at carefully, paying particular attention to the root certificate support. If the root certificate isn't in the majority of web browsers then you will have the same problem as when issuing your own certificates - prompts and imports.
Do Self Generated Certificates Have a Place?
Yes they do. I use them all the time in lab environments. When I have control over every item accessing the service, then I will use the a self generated certificate and make all of adjustments as required to get it to work correctly. However in a production deployment, they are never used.