3 ms·
I assume he means with the encrypted metadata in HTTP/3 / QUIC that it makes it harder as a security admin to "peek" at what is going on in the network. In my
by lajamerr 3y ago
I assume he means with the encrypted metadata in HTTP/3 / QUIC that it makes it harder as a security admin to "peek" at what is going on in the network.
In my opinion its short sighted, because if we care about security, then we should care about user security and privacy as well. Because if the security admin has the ability to packet inspect stuff, so does a potential malicious app.
- insanitybit 3y agoOdd, surely SSHv2 already suffers from inability to inspect on the wire.
- egberts1 3y agoFrom the Github: SSH3 is a complete revisit of the SSH protocol, mapping its semantics on top of the HTTP mechanisms. In a nutshell, SSH3 uses QUIC+TLS1.3 for secure channel establishment and the HTTP Authorization mechanisms for user authentication. So, it has nothing to do with SSH2; more about HTTP/3-QUIC security theater: hostname is still being sent over TLS/1.3 negotiation.
- insanitybit 3y agoTo be clear, my reading of the parent post is that the grandparent doesn't like HTTP/3-QUIC making it harder to read data off of the wire (ie: for internal security analytics). But I don't see how this is worse than SSHv2. In both cases retrieving the hostname / IP is obviously trivial since you just instrument DNS for the hostname and, of course, the IP is cleartext.
- egberts1 3y agoMore like incomplete state machine for HTtP/3-QUIc
- NegativeK 3y agoThe owning organization or user should already have full admin on all endpoints. Malicious apps and attackers should not.