6 ms·

Correct, both Google and Amazon told Signal not to use them for domain fronting: https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-on-the-front/ https://signal.org/blog/look

Correct, both Google and Amazon told Signal not to use them for domain fronting: https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-on-the-front/ https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-on-the-front/

rzz3 6y ago
What about Cloudflare?
- capableweb 6y ago
  Answer from Cloudflare team seems to be "No" - https://community.cloudflare.com/t/could-cloudflare-support-domain-fronting/200944 https://community.cloudflare.com/t/could-cloudflare-support-...
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    Surprised by that considering their willingness to work with ethereum on resolving .eth domains through .eth.link domains.
aftbit 6y ago
Gross! I wonder what motivated these decisions inside Amazon & Google. This likely affects the Tor project domain fronting as well. We really should not have let the majority of internet traffic be served by a small handful of giant companies without some legal protections as to what they're allowed to do.
- Craighead 6y ago
  Yes yes, but, when will Verizon and Comcast be broken up?
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Believe me, I'm all about reigning in big tech. But I would be 100% against any law that required them to allow domain fronting. It's fine if they want to, but requiring them to basically open up/leave open a hole in their systems is not right.
- praseodym 6y ago
  Probably malware using domain fronting techniques for C2 traffic played a role in that decision. E.g. https://threatpost.com/apt29-used-domain-fronting-tor-to-execute-backdoor/124582/ https://threatpost.com/apt29-used-domain-fronting-tor-to-exe...
  - damnyou 6y ago
    In general there are many things that are beneficial when used by good actors and harmful when used by bad actors. That's just the nature of power. I'm really bothered by blanket policies that prevent beneficial uses of a tool because it can also be used to cause harm. Google and Amazon need to figure out how to disambiguate the two.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  What I recall from the discussion back then is, that domain fronting basically means, that Signal would disguise itself as google or amazon traffic. So I would say, it is understandable, that they decided this is not good for their buisness. So it was not an act by google and amazon to activly harm Signal, but rather canceling ongoing support of Signal, that could put their buisness to harm, which is something different.
- powersnail 6y ago
  I don't know. In the grand scheme of things, I don't like how much infrastructure technology giants control. In this specific case, however, domain fronting is basically saying "if you want to ban me, you have to ban all of us", without asking if the rest of "us" consent to be put on the same boat. It would be cool if they are, but it's perfectly understandable for them to disagree.
contravariant 6y ago
There has to be a cleverer way to solve the problem of having several domain names on the same IP than just sending the desired domain name in plaintext.

Correct, both Google and Amazon told Signal not to use them for domain fronting: https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-on-the-front/ https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-on-the-front/

rzz3 6y ago

What about Cloudflare?

capableweb 6y ago
Answer from Cloudflare team seems to be "No" - https://community.cloudflare.com/t/could-cloudflare-support-domain-fronting/200944 https://community.cloudflare.com/t/could-cloudflare-support-...
- hanniabu 6y ago
  Surprised by that considering their willingness to work with ethereum on resolving .eth domains through .eth.link domains.

aftbit 6y ago

Gross! I wonder what motivated these decisions inside Amazon & Google. This likely affects the Tor project domain fronting as well. We really should not have let the majority of internet traffic be served by a small handful of giant companies without some legal protections as to what they're allowed to do.

Craighead 6y ago
Yes yes, but, when will Verizon and Comcast be broken up?
jaywalk 6y ago
Believe me, I'm all about reigning in big tech. But I would be 100% against any law that required them to allow domain fronting. It's fine if they want to, but requiring them to basically open up/leave open a hole in their systems is not right.
praseodym 6y ago
Probably malware using domain fronting techniques for C2 traffic played a role in that decision. E.g. https://threatpost.com/apt29-used-domain-fronting-tor-to-execute-backdoor/124582/ https://threatpost.com/apt29-used-domain-fronting-tor-to-exe...
- damnyou 6y ago
  In general there are many things that are beneficial when used by good actors and harmful when used by bad actors. That's just the nature of power. I'm really bothered by blanket policies that prevent beneficial uses of a tool because it can also be used to cause harm. Google and Amazon need to figure out how to disambiguate the two.
hutzlibu 6y ago
What I recall from the discussion back then is, that domain fronting basically means, that Signal would disguise itself as google or amazon traffic. So I would say, it is understandable, that they decided this is not good for their buisness. So it was not an act by google and amazon to activly harm Signal, but rather canceling ongoing support of Signal, that could put their buisness to harm, which is something different.
powersnail 6y ago
I don't know. In the grand scheme of things, I don't like how much infrastructure technology giants control. In this specific case, however, domain fronting is basically saying "if you want to ban me, you have to ban all of us", without asking if the rest of "us" consent to be put on the same boat. It would be cool if they are, but it's perfectly understandable for them to disagree.

contravariant 6y ago

There has to be a cleverer way to solve the problem of having several domain names on the same IP than just sending the desired domain name in plaintext.