4 ms·

Please do not do this. The previous comment does not take into account the huge security hole you're creating by doing this, in particular the importance of ens

Please do not do this. The previous comment does not take into account the huge security hole you're creating by doing this, in particular the importance of ensuring that whatever hosts you're signing certificates from does not get compromised, and the risk to things like online banking and online payments caused by your own personal MITM host being compromised. As frustrating as tracking on the internet may be, you'll be a lot more resentful of your bank when they outright refuse to refund you any of your money, when it becomes clear that you opted to MITM your traffic, and your MITM host got compromised, resulting in the theft of your banking credentials. There are many reasons why you should MITM your hosts, and there are many reasons why companies Bluecoat make large sums of money providing solutions to this problem. It is not a trivial problem and solution. In a much simpler space, "just run an FTP server" does not encompass what Dropbox does.

swiley 7y ago
You also have to make sure the machine your browsing from isn’t compromised. IMO it changes very little unless you’re living with other people.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  From a technical perspective, I agree with both of your points. From the perspective of dealing with my bank, my desktop being compromised by malware that results in bad things on my bank account, is something that could happen to a large number of their other customers. There will be policies in place, and there is a stronger defence that the money was stolen, and not that I was negligent in my security practices. In the event that I opted to break the end to end encryption between my browser and their server with my own middleware, it will be argued that I am technically competent to manage my IT security properly, and that the bank cannot be faulted for my failures. They could try this defence on the first instance too, but given that one scenario impacts everyone, and the other only impacts people who have declared that they know better, I don't expect much sympathy for the latter group.
JohnFen 7y ago
> There are many reasons why you should MITM your hosts Which is why I do it, although I didn't start until DoH came around. Your comments are very well taken, though -- doing this certainly does bring an entirely new collection of problems with it. But for some people (at least, for me), the cost/benefit of properly implementing a MITM is lower than the cost/benefit of remaining vulnerable to marketers and other tracking ne'er-do-wells.

swiley 7y ago

You also have to make sure the machine your browsing from isn’t compromised. IMO it changes very little unless you’re living with other people.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oarsinsync 7y ago
From a technical perspective, I agree with both of your points. From the perspective of dealing with my bank, my desktop being compromised by malware that results in bad things on my bank account, is something that could happen to a large number of their other customers. There will be policies in place, and there is a stronger defence that the money was stolen, and not that I was negligent in my security practices. In the event that I opted to break the end to end encryption between my browser and their server with my own middleware, it will be argued that I am technically competent to manage my IT security properly, and that the bank cannot be faulted for my failures. They could try this defence on the first instance too, but given that one scenario impacts everyone, and the other only impacts people who have declared that they know better, I don't expect much sympathy for the latter group.

JohnFen 7y ago

> There are many reasons why you should MITM your hosts Which is why I do it, although I didn't start until DoH came around. Your comments are very well taken, though -- doing this certainly does bring an entirely new collection of problems with it. But for some people (at least, for me), the cost/benefit of properly implementing a MITM is lower than the cost/benefit of remaining vulnerable to marketers and other tracking ne'er-do-wells.