3 ms·
I've heard that some corporate networks do this to enable filtering and monitor employee internet usage. I could see that being a somewhat legitimate use case.
by maccam94 11y ago
I've heard that some corporate networks do this to enable filtering and monitor employee internet usage. I could see that being a somewhat legitimate use case.
- shkkmo 11y agoSo you don't think that the corporate employees have the right to know then their company is doing MITM to monitor their HTTPS traffic?
- euyyn 11y agoI guess if you're using a company's computer on that company's network, assume it's their best interest to monitor some of the stuff.
- itistoday2 11y agoThey can monitor, that's fine, and the correct/ethical thing would be to inform the employees about it and show them a little thing in Chrome to indicate they're being monitored. Informed consent, in other words. pdkl95 also makes excellent point about the current default behavior being the problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10630375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10630375
- pdkl95 11y agoA corporate network (or any other end user) should have no trouble enabling some sort of explicit override option. Having the ability to override certs is fine; the problem is that it's default behavior. Dell would (hopefully) be a lot more reluctant to ship one of these certs and show specific intentions by changing settings to allow this kind of override.
- JoshTriplett 11y agoWe could argue over whether that qualifies as "legitimate", but in any case that doesn't require doing it silently and showing sites as secure. Browsing on such a network should show persistent warnings about every site whose traffic appears potentially intercepted. You can then knowingly continue browsing on that network if you consider it legitimate.