4 ms·

Cloudflare has a legally binding contract with Mozilla to this effect. So you’ve traded up from a number of companies that have never promised to not sniff or t

by 542458 5y ago

Cloudflare has a legally binding contract with Mozilla to this effect. So you’ve traded up from a number of companies that have never promised to not sniff or tamper with your traffic (and often do, and don’t really have any positive brand image to protect) up to a single company that has a legal commitment not to tamper with your traffic (and has some form of brand image to protect). I too, would prefer if DoH had more technical features to prevent sniffing/tampering, but this is an upgrade.

michaelt 5y ago
See, IMHO a "binding contract" isn't worth the paper it's written on if violations of the contract are undetectable. There's no brand image impact if there's no evidence. And if I was an intelligence agency trying place spies, Cloudflare would be among the first tech companies I'd target. This feature seems almost exclusively a feature for people in the ISP-monopoly-friendly United States.
- wintermutestwin 5y ago
  >And if I was an intelligence agency trying place spies, Cloudflare would be among the first tech companies I'd target. This seems like a threat model swap in the conversation. The subject threat model here is (1) defending against companies stealing and selling my data. You swapped in the threat of (2) state level agencies spying on you through these companies. The problem is that #2 seems to be an intractable problem. (but not so much because of an infiltrated DNS provider, more like cable taps and infiltrated hardware manufacturers) #1 seems to be a more solvable problem (albeit at increasing levels of complexity). When you bring #2 into the conversation, it defocuses on the solution to #1 and gets to a point where we all throw up our hands and admit helplessness and defeat. I see this happen often and I think every conversation should be clearly grounded in the threat model that is being addressed.

by 542458 5y ago

michaelt 5y ago

See, IMHO a "binding contract" isn't worth the paper it's written on if violations of the contract are undetectable. There's no brand image impact if there's no evidence. And if I was an intelligence agency trying place spies, Cloudflare would be among the first tech companies I'd target. This feature seems almost exclusively a feature for people in the ISP-monopoly-friendly United States.

wintermutestwin 5y ago
>And if I was an intelligence agency trying place spies, Cloudflare would be among the first tech companies I'd target. This seems like a threat model swap in the conversation. The subject threat model here is (1) defending against companies stealing and selling my data. You swapped in the threat of (2) state level agencies spying on you through these companies. The problem is that #2 seems to be an intractable problem. (but not so much because of an infiltrated DNS provider, more like cable taps and infiltrated hardware manufacturers) #1 seems to be a more solvable problem (albeit at increasing levels of complexity). When you bring #2 into the conversation, it defocuses on the solution to #1 and gets to a point where we all throw up our hands and admit helplessness and defeat. I see this happen often and I think every conversation should be clearly grounded in the threat model that is being addressed.