3 ms·

Am I correct in assuming that this is going to be mostly impactful on the server side for at-risk services that are at risk of getting blocked using SNI fingerp

Am I correct in assuming that this is going to be mostly impactful on the server side for at-risk services that are at risk of getting blocked using SNI fingerprinting? Since browsers will get adoption easily, but servers will need to make changes, wondering which operators will have the right incentives to upgrade to ECH, especially since it’s much more involved than usual TLS upgrades.

jeroenhd 5y ago
The incentive could be as simple as ssllabs not handing out an A or A+ score if your site doesn't support encrypted hello. I've heard of several huge companies that base the security rating of their websites in part in getting a good score on the ssllabs test, so they and their vendors would need to move once the test changes. I don't think it's healthy to rely on an arbitrary test like that for your company contracts, but it's what's happening. Once the feature is stable in server and client software, I'm sure it'll become part of the test and many big companies with complicated contracts will rush to implement it. There are some companies that I expect will be early adopters, namely companies that are sensitive in nature. Porn, specific medical websites, you name it. With proxied DoH and encrypted SNI you can set up a connection to a website privately and securely without ever naming it in plain text. If that website runs behind a big cloud host like Cloudflare, there's no way for your ISP or any other passively spying company to know what you're up to.
tialaramex 5y ago
As with TLS 1.3 itself, a big benefit is that the Inner encrypted Hello can't be inspected by whatever (inevitably poorly made and never updated) middleboxes are on the route between client and server. It isn't important to the Internet whether these middle boxes are put there by the Government of the People's Republic of China to promote Harmony, by your daughters $1000 per month private school to prevent her looking at "inappropriate" material (whether that's the 1619 project, TikTok, or porn) or your employer to dissuade employees from uploading PDFs of company secrets, the problem and the solution is the same from the Internet's point of view. Did you know that TLS certificate compression is an obvious, trivial improvement to the rapidity of secured connections that could not be deployed for over a decade because until TLS 1.3 the Certificate message is cleartext and so if you send one that looks "wrong" to some dodgy middlebox firmware written in 2006 your web site doesn't work? Whenever the purpose of bypassing middleboxes is explained, there are people who are outraged. How dare we fix the Internet? They were relying on FaultySoft CrapSecurity 0.0.1 from 2006 and now we've ruined everything by bypassing it. No we didn't, by definition if what we did worked, your middlebox already wasn't protecting you. We've shattered your illusion and that's all. Santa Claus isn't real either.
- donmcronald 5y ago
  > How dare we fix the Internet? Fix it for who? We’re not far off from completely locked down devices, at least on mobile, where the last few options for ad (and tracking) blocking are being “fixed” in the sense they’re being removed. Everything will eventually use DoH, ECH, and CDN IPs and it’ll be impossible to distinguish content from ads and tracking. I wouldn’t be surprised if browsers eventually stop letting addons see hostnames due to “privacy concerns”. At that point we’ll have unstoppable ads and tracking everywhere.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  Isn't DNS filter easier than SNI-based blocking?
  - donmcronald 5y ago
    Only until all devices are using DoH. Your TV manufacturer isn’t going to give you an opt out switch for the modern network protocols that guarantee users can’t block ads and tracking.
  - Anunayj 5y ago
    yes it is, but it is also less effective, since users can easily use DNS over TLS to get around these measures. With SNI based blocking their only choice is proxying/VPNing which is much harder and less accessible.
    - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
      You mean quad nine? How difficult it is to block? That's literally one rule in the firewall.

jeroenhd 5y ago

The incentive could be as simple as ssllabs not handing out an A or A+ score if your site doesn't support encrypted hello. I've heard of several huge companies that base the security rating of their websites in part in getting a good score on the ssllabs test, so they and their vendors would need to move once the test changes. I don't think it's healthy to rely on an arbitrary test like that for your company contracts, but it's what's happening. Once the feature is stable in server and client software, I'm sure it'll become part of the test and many big companies with complicated contracts will rush to implement it. There are some companies that I expect will be early adopters, namely companies that are sensitive in nature. Porn, specific medical websites, you name it. With proxied DoH and encrypted SNI you can set up a connection to a website privately and securely without ever naming it in plain text. If that website runs behind a big cloud host like Cloudflare, there's no way for your ISP or any other passively spying company to know what you're up to.

tialaramex 5y ago

As with TLS 1.3 itself, a big benefit is that the Inner encrypted Hello can't be inspected by whatever (inevitably poorly made and never updated) middleboxes are on the route between client and server. It isn't important to the Internet whether these middle boxes are put there by the Government of the People's Republic of China to promote Harmony, by your daughters $1000 per month private school to prevent her looking at "inappropriate" material (whether that's the 1619 project, TikTok, or porn) or your employer to dissuade employees from uploading PDFs of company secrets, the problem and the solution is the same from the Internet's point of view. Did you know that TLS certificate compression is an obvious, trivial improvement to the rapidity of secured connections that could not be deployed for over a decade because until TLS 1.3 the Certificate message is cleartext and so if you send one that looks "wrong" to some dodgy middlebox firmware written in 2006 your web site doesn't work? Whenever the purpose of bypassing middleboxes is explained, there are people who are outraged. How dare we fix the Internet? They were relying on FaultySoft CrapSecurity 0.0.1 from 2006 and now we've ruined everything by bypassing it. No we didn't, by definition if what we did worked, your middlebox already wasn't protecting you. We've shattered your illusion and that's all. Santa Claus isn't real either.

donmcronald 5y ago
> How dare we fix the Internet? Fix it for who? We’re not far off from completely locked down devices, at least on mobile, where the last few options for ad (and tracking) blocking are being “fixed” in the sense they’re being removed. Everything will eventually use DoH, ECH, and CDN IPs and it’ll be impossible to distinguish content from ads and tracking. I wouldn’t be surprised if browsers eventually stop letting addons see hostnames due to “privacy concerns”. At that point we’ll have unstoppable ads and tracking everywhere.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
Isn't DNS filter easier than SNI-based blocking?
- donmcronald 5y ago
  Only until all devices are using DoH. Your TV manufacturer isn’t going to give you an opt out switch for the modern network protocols that guarantee users can’t block ads and tracking.
- Anunayj 5y ago
  yes it is, but it is also less effective, since users can easily use DNS over TLS to get around these measures. With SNI based blocking their only choice is proxying/VPNing which is much harder and less accessible.
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    You mean quad nine? How difficult it is to block? That's literally one rule in the firewall.