4 ms·
This is a much bigger deal than people are giving it credit for. At any point in history, have CAs revoked certs solely to censor a target website? Maybe the
by sillysaurus3 8y ago
This is a much bigger deal than people are giving it credit for.
At any point in history, have CAs revoked certs solely to censor a target website?
Maybe the answer is yes. I don't know. But this is a rude wake-up call for me and everyone else who tried to force the world into this shape.
We've all been shouting "You have to use TLS! It's fundamental security 101. If you're not using https, your site is probably broken. And there's no reason not to do it, since it's so easy."
Surprise: Now nobdoy trusts http, and those that control https can revoke their trust based on arbitrary human morals rather than solid technical reasons.
I was a pentester for years and not once did anybody mention this threat anywhere. It's blindingly obvious in hindsight, but it was too easy not to think about it.
Let's Encrypt is in the exact same position. Why do we trust them? Think about it -- they're under US jurisdiction and subject to US laws. The government could compel them to revoke certs.
We're lucky that it's just a minor annoyance. Picture a world where no major browser renders http at all, and the only way to get a site online is to have a trusted cert.
This is not far from reality: If the Magic Leap turns out not to be vaporware, they're going to be launching a DRM-powered internet that can't be adblocked. And that means we'll all be subject to government whims far more than we'd like to admit.
- maxerickson 8y agoAll the various DNS alternatives people have pitched over the years pretty directly address the centralization issue you are getting at here. Often by casting themselves as decentralized. Really the issue is that decentralization isn't very compatible with convenience and people generally place a lot more value on convenience than things like Sci-Hub.
- ams6110 8y agoSelf-signed certificates, trust on first use (or verify out of band) like SSH, works around most of this
- ethbro 8y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but the signed server-identifying cert is swapped in TLS before the connection is encrypted, no? So it's not technically infeasible to have networking gear drop any connection which doesn't chain back to a government-approved root?
- userbinator 8y agoSo it's not technically infeasible to have networking gear drop any connection which doesn't chain back to a government-approved root? Yse, and that is a very scary thought. China is doing something similar already.
- ams6110 8y agoYou could use a VPN. If you live in a place like China that blocks VPNs, you are screwed, agreed.
- cesarb 8y ago> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the signed server-identifying cert is swapped in TLS before the connection is encrypted, no? Only on old TLS versions. TLS 1.3 changed it so the server certificate is also encrypted.
- catamorphismic 8y agoWhat about SNI?
- lfam 8y agoIt's true HTTPS traffic can be blocked (at least partially) by revoking certificates, but is this worse than the censorship opportunities offered by unauthenticated HTTP? Whether the traffic is authenticated or not, ISPs block sites when instructed by government orders. And that is much harder to work around than a revoked TLS cert (although a revoked cert does mean "totally blocked" for almost all users). These are not purely technical challenges, but rather political issues that must be addressed as such. We will always lose to our governments if we focus only on technical solutions to censorship. I'd like to add that the USA government, for the most part, does not accept an absolute right to private communication. The possibility of ubiquitous end-to-end encrypted communications with tools like TLS and WhatsApp is not something we should take for granted. The USA matters here because we are the powerful nation with the strongest legal and cultural commitment to freedom of speech.
- ethbro 8y ago> At any point in history, have CAs revoked certs solely to censor a target website? Revoking certs from US CAs is probably the new DNS seizure, post- encryption and TLD expansion. Although hopefully it'll die a quick death when they realize it's ineffective.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- staticassertion 8y agoI do not see how censorship at the CA level is worse than the ISP/ DNS level. We should not discourage people from using TLS because it allows for one of many other methods to censor. SEC takedowns have happened for years without relying on TLS.
- Xylakant 8y agoISP/DNS-takedowns affect only customers of a single provider. Compelling every US provider is tedious and would still not affect people in other jurisdictions. CA-levy takedowns affect everyone.
- mikeash 8y agoA takedown against the hosting ISP would affect everyone, and DNS takedowns can involve changing the authoritative record.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]