4 ms·
Why not have the insecure or interceptable protocols as optional protocol extensions and make everyone happy? Much like with fips and how you can build openssl
by badrabbit 9y ago
Why not have the insecure or interceptable protocols as optional protocol extensions and make everyone happy? Much like with fips and how you can build openssl and other tls libs with fips mode on or off.
TLS 1.3 client libraries could then optionally support interceptable key exchange depending on who is using them. An individual can use normal OS and distro that exclude the insecure features while banks and military facilities might turn it on.
Alternatively,why the "one size fits all" approach? Why not have a "TLS-commercial". Obviously the "one size fits all" requires a comptomise by all parties resulting in a collective reduction of security.
- pdkl95 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downgrade_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downgrade_attack
- cesarb 9y ago> Why not have the insecure or interceptable protocols as optional protocol extensions and make everyone happy? That sounds like the "draft-rehired" proposal. Here's a list of arguments against it (and similar proposals): https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil