What's the right UX for an expired certificate?
My biggest issue with this whole situation, is that the user gets a better UX with <i>no encryption whatsoever</i> on a <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;</a> site than a self-signed or expired cert on <i><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;</a></i>.<p>I know all the stories about MITM attacks, but the fact is, it is still <i>MUCH</i> easier to accidentally or purposefully log unencrypted <i><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;</a></i> traffic in a passive manner than it is to actively spoof a <i>HTTPS:&#x2F;&#x2F;</i> connection.<p>Especially for local LANs, but also for small websites, there should be a way to use TLS with a self-signed cert to say <i>hey, I&#x27;m not making any strong claims of identity or privacy here, I just want some modicum of obfuscation of the traffic</i>. Also, a user should be able to trust a specific cert once on first visit, and then be warned only if that cert changed.<p>Also, the fact that the entire world&#x27;s infrastructure relies on some small, centralised non-profit in the USA (LetsEncrypt) makes me very nervous. Ordinary citizens can end up on the wrong side of sanctions through no fault of their own...