Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Incubator Q&A

Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.

Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.

One cert with many domains, or one domain per cert? Question

+2
−0

I've noticed that it's possible to use DNS Name multiple times, so that a TLS certificate will cover multiple domains.

Alternatively, you could generate a separate cert for each domain.

What are the implications of choosing one approach or the other, in terms of security and maintainability?

I'm sure actual certificate agencies restrict such things, and of course more certificates can be more expensive (unless you use a free CA like LetsEncrypt). In this case, I am asking about self-signed certificates for my own internal servers. So let's disregard purely administrative restrictions, and look at the practical consequences.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

Relevant to you

  • A single certificate is easier to manage, rotate, etc.

Borderline

  • Before Server Name Indication (SNI), you could only bind one certificate to each IP/Port combination on a particular server. SNI had to be supported both on the server and on the client. If you have IE8 users visiting your web server for some reason, you'd need to use a single certificate.

  • If you add more domains later, separate certificates are cheaper because you don't have to re-request a CSR for an old- and new-domain cert before the normal expiration/renewal of your old one. The monetary cost isn't a factor for you, but it's up to you whether it's easiest to add a new site with its own cert or to rebind everyone.

Not relevant to you

  • Multiple domains on a single certificate are expensive, just like multiple certificates are expensive. And wildcards cost more, too. You'd have to look up the pricing structure of your particular CA to price out the most affordable CSR scheme.

  • With several sites on the same cert, it might be weird for one site to be associated with the domain of the other. This is pretty unremarkable, though. Someone could still determine that they were both on the same IP.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »