←back to thread

489 points gslin | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
pests ◴[] No.42191619[source]
It feels like just yesterday I was paying for certs, or worst, just running without.

Can't believe its been ten years.

replies(1): >>42191666 #
ozim ◴[] No.42191666[source]
Can’t believe there are still anti TLS weirdos.
replies(7): >>42191688 #>>42191718 #>>42191893 #>>42192714 #>>42192733 #>>42193057 #>>42193614 #
Pannoniae ◴[] No.42191893[source]
TLS is not panacea and it's not universally positive. Here are some arguments against it for balance.

TLS is fairly computationally intensive - sure, not a big deal now because everyone is using superfast devices but try browsing the internet with a Pentium 4 or something. You won't be able to because there is no AES instruction set support accelerating the keyshake so it's hilariously slow.

It also encourages memoryholing old websites which aren't maintained - priceless knowledge is often lost because websites go down because no one is maintaining them. On my hard drive, I have a fair amount of stuff which I'm reasonably confident doesn't exist anywhere on the Internet anymore.... if my drives fail, that knowledge will be lost forever.

It is also a very centralised model - if I want to host a website, why do third parties need to issue a certificate for it just so people can connect to it?

It also discourages naive experimentation - sure, if you know how, you can MitM your own connection but for the not very technical but curious user, that's probably an insurmountable roadblock.

replies(6): >>42191942 #>>42192026 #>>42192088 #>>42192426 #>>42192479 #>>42193243 #
ozim ◴[] No.42192426[source]
*It also discourages naive experimentation* that's the point where if you put on silly website no one can easily MitM it when its data is sent across the globe and use 0-day in browser on "fluffy kittens page".

Biggest problem that Edward Snowden uncovered was - this stuff was happening and was happening en-mass FULLY AUTOMATED - it wasn't some kid in basement getting MitM on your WiFi after hours of tinkering.

It was also happening fully automated as shitty ISPs were injecting their ads into your traffic, so your fluffy kittens page was used to serve ads by bad people.

There is no "balance" if you understand bad people are going to swap your "fluffy kittens page" into "hardcore porn" only if they get hands on it. Bad people will include 0-day malware to target anyone and everyone just in case they can earn money on it.

You also have to understand don't have any control through which network your "fluffy kitten page" data will pass through - malicious groups were doing multiple times BGP hijacking.

So saying "well it is just fluffy kitten page my neighbors are checking for the photos I post" seems like there is a lot of explaining on how Internet is working to be done.

replies(1): >>42192545 #
account42 ◴[] No.42192545[source]
> It also discourages naive experimentation that's the point where if you put on silly website no one can easily MitM it when its data is sent across the globe and use 0-day in browser on "fluffy kittens page".

Transport security doesn't make 0-days any less of a concern.

> It was also happening fully automated as shitty ISPs were injecting their ads into your traffic, so your fluffy kittens page was used to serve ads by bad people.

That's a societal/legal problem. Trying to solve those with technological means is generally not a good idea.

> There is no "balance" if you understand bad people are going to swap your "fluffy kittens page" into "hardcore porn" only if they get hands on it. Bad people will include 0-day malware to target anyone and everyone just in case they can earn money on it.

The only people who can realistically MITM your connection are network operators and governments. These can and should be held accountable for their interference. You have no more security that your food wansn't tampered with during transport but somehow you live with that. Similarly security of physical mail is 100% legislative construct.

> You also have to understand don't have any control through which network your "fluffy kitten page" data will pass through - malicious groups were doing multiple times BGP hijacking.

I don't but my ISP does. Solutions for malicious actors interfering with routing are needed irrespective of transport security.

> So saying "well it is just fluffy kitten page my neighbors are checking for the photos I post" seems like there is a lot of explaining on how Internet is working to be done.

Not at all - unless you are also epecting them to have their fluffy kitten postcards checked for Anthrax. In general, it is security people who often need to touch grass because the security model they are working with is entirely divorced from reality.

replies(3): >>42192804 #>>42193262 #>>42193846 #
1. OkayPhysicist ◴[] No.42193846[source]
> transport security doesn't make 0-days any less of a concern.

It does make the actual execution of said attacks significantly harder. To actually hit someone's browser, they need to receive your payload. In the naive case, you can stick it on a webserver you control, but how many people are going to randomly visit your website? Most people visit only a handful of domains on a regular visit, and you've got tops a couple days before your exploit is going to be patched.

So you need to get your payload into the responses from those few domains people are actually making requests from. If you can pwn one of them, fantastic. Serve up your 0-day. But those websites are big, and are constantly under attack. That means you're not going to find any low-hanging fruit vulnerability-wise. Your best bet is trying to get one of them to willing serve your payload, maybe in the guise of an ad or something. Tricky, but not impossible.

But before universal https, you have another option: target the delivery chain. If they connect to a network you control? Pwned. If they use a router with bad security defaults that you find a vulnerability in? Pwned. If they use a small municipal ISP that turns out to have skimped on security? Pwned. Hell, you open up a whole attack vector via controlling an intermediate router at the ISP level. That's not to mention targeting DNS servers.

HTTPS dramatically shrinks the attack surface for the mass distribution unwanted payloads down to basically the high-traffic domains and the CA chain. That's a massive reduction.

> The only people who can realistically MITM your connection are network operators and governments.

Literally anyone can be a network operator. It takes minimal hardware. Coffee shop with wifi? Network operator. Dude popping up a wifi hotspot off his phone? Network operator. Sketchy dude in a black hoodie with a raspberry pi bridging the "Starbucks_guest" as "Starbucks Complimentary Wifi"? Network operator. Putting the security of every packet of web traffic onto "network operators" means drastically reducing internet access.

> You have no more security that your food wasn't tampered with during transport but somehow you live with that.

I've yet to hear of a case where some dude in a basement poisoned a CISCO truck without having to even put on pants. Routers get hacked plenty.

HTTPS is an easy, trivial-cost solution that completely eliminates multiple types of threats, several of which are either have major damage to their target or risk mass exposure, or both. Universal HTTPS is like your car beeping at you when you start moving without your seat belt on: kinda annoying when you're doing a small thing in tightly controlled environments, but has an outstanding risk reduction, and can be ignored with a little headache if you really want to.