38 ms·
That is an awful idea - in post Snowden world you encrypt all traffic period. Then you have post Jia Tan world - if there is even slightest remote possibility,
by ozim 2y ago
That is an awful idea - in post Snowden world you encrypt all traffic period.
Then you have post Jia Tan world - if there is even slightest remote possibility, you just don't want to be exposed.
Just like washing hands after peeing, just do HTTPS and don't argue.
- superkuh 2y agoIf that's your threat model then CA TLS is going to make things even worse for you because now the nation state pressure can be centralized and directed through the CA. There are trade-offs but HTTP has it's place. HTTP is far easier to set up, more robust, far more decentralized, supports far more other software, and has a longer lifetime. For humans who aren't dealing with nation state threat models those attributes make it very attractive and useful. We should not cargo cult the requirements for a multi-national business that does monetary transactions and sends private information with a website run by a human person for recreation and other humans. There is more to the web than commerce and we should design for human persons as well as corporate persons.
- ozim 2y agoWere you familiar with Snowden revelations? How NSA was just putting gear in ISPs or nodes where are internet gateways to pass all traffic through their automated tooling? It was not monetary or business it is not “threat model” thing. Having all traffic encrypted is a must for basic human freedom.
- superkuh 2y agoIt is a human freedom thing. Having to get continued permission to host a visit-able website from a CA is very un-free. That's why HTTP+HTTPS is so good. The best of both worlds with the downsides of neither. Passive massive surveillance is by definition not doing active MITM targeting.
- ric2b 2y agoISP's have been known to inject ads into HTTP pages, and ads are the least malicious thing that could be done by an ISP or wifi hotspot. HTTP MITM is way too cheap and accessible to pretend you're not vulnerable to it constantly or that you need to be a target, you don't.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoDogma is how religion works, not engineering. If someone doesn't believe the benefit is worth the cost, they can and should question the practice. Blind obedience to a dogma of "just do HTTPS" is not a reasonable approach.
- HL33tibCe7 2y ago“Rules of thumb” form many of the fundamental tenets of engineering practice. Using HTTPS everywhere is one such rule of thumb. It’s just not worth expending the mental energy considering every single edge case (while likely forgetting about some) in order to try and work out whether you can cut the corner to use HTTP rather than HTTPS, when using HTTPS is so easy.
- ozim 2y agoYou cannot call out something dogma if you don’t understand reasons. Injecting ads by ISPs into http is documented and known - they can inject anything on transit of HTTP it can be done automatically and basically with 0 cost. ISP is one the other all kind of free WiFi. It is not only “NSA will get me” or only financial transactions. There are new known exploits in browsers and systems found on daily basis. So reasoning is someone has to be of interest - not true because it is cheap and automated tls is making cost higher for simply scooping stuff.