5 ms·
Still doesn't help with domain censorship. This was discussed in-depth in the other thread from yesterday, but TLDR, it's a lot harder to block https://s3.amazo
by chipperyman573 7y ago
Still doesn't help with domain censorship. This was discussed in-depth in the other thread from yesterday, but TLDR, it's a lot harder to block https://s3.amazonaws.com/tiananmen-square-facts https://s3.amazonaws.com/tiananmen-square-facts than https://tiananmen-square-facts.s3.amazonaws.com https://tiananmen-square-facts.s3.amazonaws.com because DNS lookups are made before HTTPS kicks in.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoWhat could Amazon do that would "help"?
- chipperyman573 7y agoStill let people use the old path system, even on new servers. This is an often-used trick to get around government censorship that will be destroyed with this change.
- est 7y agoWhy S3 must carry the burden of getting around censorship? If you are talking about China, yeah, Google used to carry that burden. Now GAE, GCloud, Youtube, Gmail are all gone. The whole IP range was blacklisted. Now what? Just because something accidentally works does not mean it will last forever.
- dserodio 7y agoThey don't "must", but it would be very nice of them.
- realusername 7y agoChina isn't the only repressive country in the world, there's plenty of people using domain fronting right now in other parts of the world.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoTBH, though, I'm not sure that would really help that much over time. It's clear there are real benefits for having bucket names in subdomains, such that the majority of new users would pick that format in any case. In that situation, governments may end up just blocking s3.amazon.com in any case because "only old bad guys" continue to use it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- haney 7y agoI believe their point was that a central authority would have finer grained censorship control with the v2 bucket scheme instead of the old path based scheme.
- djsumdog 7y agoI don't think they really want to. It's literally the biggest reason for the change (they can work around the load balancing issues) and they do not address it at all in the article. The Internet is not what it use to be, and it's going to become more and more difficult to deal with censorship. The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it. - John Perry Barlow
- clinta 7y agoAnd even if you use encrypted DNS, the domain is still in the clear via SNI. There's an RFC for encrypting SNI, but that's not here yet.
- chaitanya 7y agoAren’t TLS certificates also sent in plaintext?
- sorz 7y agoNo longer since TLS 1.3
- infogulch 7y agoEncrypted SNI seems to be tailor made for this situation. The public portion of the request SNI would just be s3.amazonaws.com but the ESNI extension has the full subdomain name. That (+encrypted dns) solves the privacy issue, while still enabling all the new features and improvements they have planned.
- kalleboo 7y agoDoes encrypted SNI solve the issues that AWS are trying to solve by removing path-style S3 requests? Namely, removing the complexity and single-point-of-failure of having one domain, and making it possible for subdomains to have varying allowed cipher settings? I don't know how encrypted SNI will work, but it surely it must choose the cipher before it sends the domain, so it ought to rule out one of the reasons for the change?
- wahern 7y agoAccording to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-esni-03 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-esni-03 ESNI parameters (e.g. public key) are queried via DNS. In the above case, the browser queries a TXT record for _esni.tiananmen-square-facts.s3.amazonaws.com, in addition to A and/or AAAA records for tiananmen-square-facts.s3.amazonaws.com. It then uses the public and other parameters to encrypt the SNI. So it simply shifts the problem to DNS. To keep requests confidential from sniffers on your LAN or somewhere along the path, you're expected to use something like DoH.
- btown 7y agoIt actually helps tremendously, since at the very least now there can be a "black market" for legacy (pre-Sept-2020) buckets, especially those on dedicated accounts that can be provided to organizations spreading facts like this.
- chipperyman573 7y agoI don't understand, why would restricting access to an anti-censorship service help fight censorship?
- btown 7y agoI mean that relative to the previous proposal, this is better. But other commenters make good points that legacy buckets could be blocked.
- BrentOzar 7y ago> It actually helps tremendously, since at the very least now there can be a "black market" for legacy (pre-Sept-2020) buckets Err, no, countries will just block the legacy bucket URL style and say that only the bad guys would still be using it.
- comex 7y agoHowever, encrypted SNI and DNS-over-HTTPS should provide a better solution to that problem once they're ready, and there's no reason to think Amazon won't adopt encrypted SNI.
- Thaxll 7y agoWhy is it harder, just block s3.amazonaws.com that's it. I don't think countries that block domains care about s3.amazonaws.com.