5 ms·

The default applies currently if you enable an experimental feature. They hammered out a tight privacy agreement for one service and use that as default while t

The default applies currently if you enable an experimental feature. They hammered out a tight privacy agreement for one service and use that as default while this is stabilized. You can pick any other resolver if you prefer. Seems a legit way of handling this. > And the article's argument that, if you have to choose somebody to share this data with, it might as well be the people you already share it with, seems pretty valid to me. The whole point of HTTPS and DNS-over-HTTPS is to not share any data at all with your provider. It’s not entirely working right now due to SNI being plaintext, but work is being done on that, too. So that’s really not a good argument.

nebulous1 8y ago
> The whole point of HTTPS and DNS-over-HTTPS is to not share any data at all with your provider. It’s not entirely working right now due to SNI being plaintext, but work is being done on that, too. So that’s really not a good argument. If that was the whole point of https then we wouldn't have plaintext SNI. I can't even begin to understand why you think that there being a draft of an SNI encryption standard makes it 'really not a good argument'.
- Xylakant 8y ago
  Originally, HTTPS required a dedicated IP address (or at least a dedicated IP/Port pair) for the server. SNI is a tack-on on TLS to fix that, so that TLS can be deployed more widely, allowing to encrypt traffic that was plaintext before. Encrypted SNI is a tack-on to fix that SNI needs to transmitted in plaintext. So yes, the design goal of HTTPS is to hide as much information from all intermediaries as possible. It’s just that you can’t fix everything at once, so gradual improvements are made.
  - nebulous1 8y ago
    Well, I can't get behind saying that hiding the site your visiting from your provider is the "whole point" of https when it specifically doesn't do that. I mean, we both understand what https is aiming to do in general, and I assume you aren't suggesting that https has been an complete failure since SNI was introduced. However, admittedly I'm just reacting to you using the term "whole point" in conjunction with something it's failing to do.
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      I’m not suggesting https is a complete failure. I’m saying that HTTPS hasn’t yet achieved all that it intended to cover. It does the best it can given current real world constraints. That requires tradeoffs. But work is done to improve the situation and I’m generally happy for every feature that pushes the needle in the right direction.
soziawa 8y ago
> The whole point of HTTPS and DNS-over-HTTPS is to not share any data at all with your provider. Won't they still see which website you then request?
- Xylakant 8y ago
  Currently, the provider could read the SNI value from the request, but work is done to encrypt that as well. This would allow them to see which Hostnamen was requested, but they cannot peek into the actual transmission (which is incidentally how domain fronting works: announce a different SNI than the actual requests Host header)
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Cloudflare is an US company, their privacy statement is worth zero to most Firefox users.
- Xylakant 8y ago
  Most Firefox users are absolutely unaffected by this. Literally all people that don’t explicitly enable this. All those who do might want to make up their mind if they want to participate in this and if they want CF to be their provider of trust. Keep in mind that CF will see a substantial chunk of the traffic anyways. Mozilla seems to be confident in that agreement and I have a certain amount of trust in Mozilla which factors into my decision. Yours might be different, so don’t enable that feature or use a different provider.
  - _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
    FF will turn this on for everybody and Cloudflare will be the default 2018? Don't know. 2019? For sure. All FF browsing meta data flows into the US, the country with the most spies and no legal framework to go to court. So your argument is an obvious straw man and one wonders about your motivations to support getting all the browsing meta data into the US by default. Moving my data from Germany to the US will not make me more secure in any way. And talking about repressed countries is like "think about the children!" for the rest of us - a nice lever to sell this massive data vacuuming.
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      Why do you believe that this will be default on at any time in the near future without a reasonable configuration UI and without a reasonable set of DoH-capable nameservers? Especially given that this would break a substantial number of existing setupts? If you have this little faith into the FF/Mozilla folks, why do you keep using FF? If you’re not using Firefox, what are you concerned about?
      - mrob 8y ago
        If they don't turn it on by default, only a small number of people will use it. If only a small number of people use it, why bother implementing it?

nebulous1 8y ago

> The whole point of HTTPS and DNS-over-HTTPS is to not share any data at all with your provider. It’s not entirely working right now due to SNI being plaintext, but work is being done on that, too. So that’s really not a good argument. If that was the whole point of https then we wouldn't have plaintext SNI. I can't even begin to understand why you think that there being a draft of an SNI encryption standard makes it 'really not a good argument'.

Xylakant 8y ago
Originally, HTTPS required a dedicated IP address (or at least a dedicated IP/Port pair) for the server. SNI is a tack-on on TLS to fix that, so that TLS can be deployed more widely, allowing to encrypt traffic that was plaintext before. Encrypted SNI is a tack-on to fix that SNI needs to transmitted in plaintext. So yes, the design goal of HTTPS is to hide as much information from all intermediaries as possible. It’s just that you can’t fix everything at once, so gradual improvements are made.
- nebulous1 8y ago
  Well, I can't get behind saying that hiding the site your visiting from your provider is the "whole point" of https when it specifically doesn't do that. I mean, we both understand what https is aiming to do in general, and I assume you aren't suggesting that https has been an complete failure since SNI was introduced. However, admittedly I'm just reacting to you using the term "whole point" in conjunction with something it's failing to do.
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    I’m not suggesting https is a complete failure. I’m saying that HTTPS hasn’t yet achieved all that it intended to cover. It does the best it can given current real world constraints. That requires tradeoffs. But work is done to improve the situation and I’m generally happy for every feature that pushes the needle in the right direction.

soziawa 8y ago

> The whole point of HTTPS and DNS-over-HTTPS is to not share any data at all with your provider. Won't they still see which website you then request?

Xylakant 8y ago
Currently, the provider could read the SNI value from the request, but work is done to encrypt that as well. This would allow them to see which Hostnamen was requested, but they cannot peek into the actual transmission (which is incidentally how domain fronting works: announce a different SNI than the actual requests Host header)

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

Cloudflare is an US company, their privacy statement is worth zero to most Firefox users.

Xylakant 8y ago
Most Firefox users are absolutely unaffected by this. Literally all people that don’t explicitly enable this. All those who do might want to make up their mind if they want to participate in this and if they want CF to be their provider of trust. Keep in mind that CF will see a substantial chunk of the traffic anyways. Mozilla seems to be confident in that agreement and I have a certain amount of trust in Mozilla which factors into my decision. Yours might be different, so don’t enable that feature or use a different provider.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  FF will turn this on for everybody and Cloudflare will be the default 2018? Don't know. 2019? For sure. All FF browsing meta data flows into the US, the country with the most spies and no legal framework to go to court. So your argument is an obvious straw man and one wonders about your motivations to support getting all the browsing meta data into the US by default. Moving my data from Germany to the US will not make me more secure in any way. And talking about repressed countries is like "think about the children!" for the rest of us - a nice lever to sell this massive data vacuuming.
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    Why do you believe that this will be default on at any time in the near future without a reasonable configuration UI and without a reasonable set of DoH-capable nameservers? Especially given that this would break a substantial number of existing setupts? If you have this little faith into the FF/Mozilla folks, why do you keep using FF? If you’re not using Firefox, what are you concerned about?
    - mrob 8y ago
      If they don't turn it on by default, only a small number of people will use it. If only a small number of people use it, why bother implementing it?