3 ms·
From Mozilla link above: Since publication of the ESNI draft specification at the IETF, analysis has shown that encrypting only the SNI extension provides incom
by lallysingh 5y ago
From Mozilla link above: Since publication of the ESNI draft specification at the IETF, analysis has shown that encrypting only the SNI extension provides incomplete protection. As just one example: during session resumption, the Pre-Shared Key extension could, legally, contain a cleartext copy of exactly the same server name that is encrypted by ESNI. The ESNI approach would require an encrypted variant of every extension with potential privacy implications, and even that exposes the set of extensions advertised. Lastly, real-world use of ESNI has exposed interoperability and deployment challenges that prevented it from being enabled at a wider scale.
- The_rationalist 5y agoSo it should still make attacks harder even if possible so it's a win isn't it?
- staticassertion 5y agoNot really, since now you're stuck maintaining this broken thing, and breaking user deployments for something that isn't valuable.