11 ms·
The concern is valid, but the way the author expresses it is totally paranoid. It is not "easy" to insert a "wiretap" into TLS - as the technical article, which
by ivanbakel 9y ago
The concern is valid, but the way the author expresses it is totally paranoid. It is not "easy" to insert a "wiretap" into TLS - as the technical article, which reached the FP as well yesterday, explains, nothing the WG is discussing isn't already possible in TLS 1.2. If you're scared of a wiretap, it's already happening. Nothing is being introduced.
- tptacek 9y agoThat's not totally true. We generally want enterprises on TLS 1.3 rather than TLS 1.2; TLS 1.3 has a safer, more modern design. Further, enterprises want to be on 1.3. It's also not a legitimate IETF goal to prevent network operators from monitoring their own networks. Of course, it's not a legitimate goal to ensure they can monitor their networks in any particular way. It's not an especially simple debate.
- userbinator 9y agoI can also say that, as a personal user of filtering proxies[1], I'd want to have TLS 1.3 support too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron