4 ms·
So what’s the point? If you don’t trust the certificate you won’t be able to browse the internet at all.
by bzb6 6y ago
So what’s the point? If you don’t trust the certificate you won’t be able to browse the internet at all.
- strogonoff 6y agoI think it's either consciously let users to browse the Web over HTTPS and see green locks everywhere while effectively being MITM’d (undermining the point of encrypted connection), or ban each compromised certificate (making the Web difficult or impossible to access for folks in this situation). The remaining alternative is not defaulting to HTTPS for cases like non-sensitive static sites, which would be an unpopular proposition with some objective downsides.
- lol768 6y ago> So what’s the point? If you don’t trust the certificate you won’t be able to browse the internet at all. If all the major browser vendors do this it makes Kazakhstan's position quite difficult.
- wyldfire 6y agoUnless they decide to cat-and-mouse: issue a new one.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoEvery time they issue a new certificate, they need to get every single user to install it, whereas it should only take a moment for the browser vendors to block it. I would think it's pretty clear who has the upper hand there. They would be better off releasing some fork of Chromium—which is, unfortunately, also a thing they can presumably do...
- m-p-3 6y agoThe browser vendors could stop trusting O=ISCA, C=KZ entirely.
- mimi89999 6y agoThe point is that if browsers block the cert it will make the MITM impossible without them releasing thieir own browser. It will be much more clear for normal uaers that the custom browser can intercept internet traffic than that "security certificate". Also good luck getting that browser into the AppStore and PlayStore or making users install the apk.