6 ms·

Only slightly related ... > Chrome does not trust user-added Certificate Authorities for QUIC. Interesting. In linked issue chrome team says: > We explicitly

Only slightly related ... > Chrome does not trust user-added Certificate Authorities for QUIC. Interesting. In linked issue chrome team says: > We explicitly disallow non-publicly-trusted certificates in QUIC to prevent the deployment of QUIC interception software/hardware, as that would harm the evolvability of the QUIC protocol long-term. Use-cases that rely on non-publicly-trusted certificates can use TLS+TCP instead of QUIC. I don't follow evolution of those protocols, but i am not sure how disallowing custom certificates has anything with "evolvability" of protocol ... Anyone knows are those _reasons_?

sbinder 2y ago
Perhaps they're referring to this famous objection of financial institutions to TLS 1.3, motivated by them not wanting to update their MitM software needed for compliance: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/CzjJB1g0uFypY8UDdr6P9SCQBqA/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/CzjJB1g0uFypY8UDdr...
- eptcyka 2y ago
  TLS1.3 breaks MITM boxes because a client can establish a session key outside of the network with the middle box and continue using it afterwards in the middlebox’s network.
globular-toast 2y ago
It can seem confusing but it all makes sense when you realise Chrome is designed to work for Google, not for you. I remember people switching their Grandmas to Chrome 15 years ago when they could've chosen Firefox. Many of us knew this would happen, but convenience and branding is everything, sadly.
- le-mark 2y ago
  > Chrome is designed to work for Google, not for you. Maybe more accurately “chrome is designed to work for you in so far as that also works for google”. I share the long standing dismay that so many willingly surrendered their data and attention stream to an ad company.
- fud101 2y ago
  I don't really think Firefox cares about having users. The one killer feature Chrome has is being able to access all your state by logging into your Chrome account. Firefox refuses to provide this basic service which will allow you to seamlessly use your data on Firefox and then eventually stop using Chrome. I wish Firefox nothing but the worst.
  - chgs 2y ago
    My Firefox installs on my various computers have a shard profile, so what are you on about?
  - mdaniel 2y ago
    I may be feeding the trolls, but not only is there a sync mechanism, at least with Firefox you can self-host[1] such a thing, thereby doubly ensuring the data isn't used for something you disagree with If you're going to say that Firefox doesn't care about having users, point out its just stunningly stupid memory usage, blatantly stale developer tools (that one hurts me the worst because the Chrome dev-tooling is actually open source, so there's nothing stopping them from actually having Best In Class dev tooling other than no-fucks-given), or the har-de-har-har that comes up periodically of bugs that have been open longer than a lot of developers have been alive 1: https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs#running-via-docker https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs#running-v...
    - globular-toast 2y ago
      I find Firefox's memory usage and dev tooling better than Chrome.
    - fud101 2y ago
      Don't care about self hosting. That's not a feature to me, it's a burden. I would rather some cloud provider do that for me, thankfully Google does it for free and the convenience is much appreciated. It's the same reason i'd put my personal code in Github than some hard drive in the basement which may die anytime.
filleokus 2y ago
If I were to guess, it's to allow Google freedom in experimenting with changes to QUIC, since they control both the client and large server endpoints (Google Search, Youtube etc). They can easily release a sightly tweaked QUIC version in Chrome and support it on e.g Youtube, and then use metrics from that to inform proposed changes to the "real" standard (or just continue to run the special version for their own stuff). If they were to allow custom certificates, enterprises using something like ZScaler's ZIA to MITM employee network traffic, would risk to break when they tweak the protocol. If the data stream is completely encrypted and opaque to middleboxes, Google can more or less do whatever they want. Kinda related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_ossification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_ossification
- dstroot 2y ago
  Companies that use something like Zscaler would be highly likely to block QUIC traffic to force it onto TCP.
  - josephg 2y ago
    That’s exactly what Google is hoping will happen. If QUIC is blocked entirely, there’s no risk that small tweaks to the quic protocol will break Google’s websites for any companies using these tools.
  - tecleandor 2y ago
    Well, my company is doing it already. They split VPN traffic depending on the target domain (mostly for benign reasons), and that can't do it with QUIC, so they have to block QUIC traffic.
    - account42 2y ago
      What benign reason could there possibly be that isn't better based on IP addresses rather than domains.
      - tecleandor 2y ago
remus 2y ago
> I don't follow evolution of those protocols, but i am not sure how disallowing custom certificates has anything with "evolvability" of protocol ... One of the reasons for developing HTTP 2 and 3 was because it was so difficult to make changes to HTTP 1.1 because of middleware that relied heavily on implementation details, so it was hard to tweak things without inadvertently breaking people. They're trying to avoid a similar situation with newer versions.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
intelVISA 2y ago
QUIC exists to improve ad deliverability, to grant user freedom would counteract that goal.
- jsheard 2y ago
  How does QUIC improve ad deliverability?
  - intelVISA 2y ago
    > We explicitly disallow non-publicly-trusted certificates in QUIC to prevent the deployment of QUIC interception software/hardware, as that would harm the evolvability of the QUIC protocol For Chrome at least..!
    - josephg 2y ago
      That has nothing to do with ad deliverability.
  - superkuh 2y ago
    The entire protocol puts corporate/institutional needs first and foremost to the detriment of human person use cases. HTTP/3 makes all web things require CA TLS and means that if something in the TLS breaks (as it does every couple years with root cert expirations, version obsolecence, acme version obsolecence, etc) then the website is not accessible. Because there's no such thing as HTTP+HTTPS HTTP/3, self-signed HTTPS HTTP/3, or even, as in this case, custom CA TLS HTTP/3. It's designed entirely around corporate/institutional needs and is a terrible protocol for human people. HTTP+HTTPS websites can last decades without admin work. HTTP/3 websites can only last a few years at most.
    - persnickety 2y ago
      This doesn't have much to do with QUIC. If HTTP/3 was based upon another transport protocol, you'd have the exact same problems. You can use QUIC with custom certs without any trouble.
ozim 2y ago
There is a case of Kazakhstan installing certs to MITM citizens couple years ago and bunch of cases where bad actors can social engineer people to install certain for. I think because of KZ case browsers and Chrome especially went for using only their own cert store instead of operating system one.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  Browsers responded by blacklisting the Kazakh certificate the same way they blacklist the certificates that came with pre-installed spyware on laptops from shit vendors like Lenovo. You don't need to block all certificates to prevent against a well-known bad certificate.
toast0 2y ago
If your company requires communications to be monitored, the typical enforcement is a custom company CA installed on company equipment. Then they intercept TLS and proxy it. Those proxies tend to be strict in what they accept, and slow to learn new protocol extensions. If Google wants to use Chrome browsers to try out a new version of QUIC with its servers, proxies make that harder.
cpitman 2y ago
Middle boxes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlebox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlebox) are a well known source of protocol stagnation. A protocol with extensibility usually needs the client and server to upgrade, but with middle boxes there are N other devices that potentially need updating as well. Where the user (client) and service provider (server) are motivated to adopt new feature sets, the owners of middle boxes might be far less so. In net, it makes it hard for protocols to evolve.

sbinder 2y ago

Perhaps they're referring to this famous objection of financial institutions to TLS 1.3, motivated by them not wanting to update their MitM software needed for compliance: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/CzjJB1g0uFypY8UDdr6P9SCQBqA/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/CzjJB1g0uFypY8UDdr...

eptcyka 2y ago
TLS1.3 breaks MITM boxes because a client can establish a session key outside of the network with the middle box and continue using it afterwards in the middlebox’s network.

globular-toast 2y ago

It can seem confusing but it all makes sense when you realise Chrome is designed to work for Google, not for you. I remember people switching their Grandmas to Chrome 15 years ago when they could've chosen Firefox. Many of us knew this would happen, but convenience and branding is everything, sadly.

le-mark 2y ago
> Chrome is designed to work for Google, not for you. Maybe more accurately “chrome is designed to work for you in so far as that also works for google”. I share the long standing dismay that so many willingly surrendered their data and attention stream to an ad company.
fud101 2y ago
I don't really think Firefox cares about having users. The one killer feature Chrome has is being able to access all your state by logging into your Chrome account. Firefox refuses to provide this basic service which will allow you to seamlessly use your data on Firefox and then eventually stop using Chrome. I wish Firefox nothing but the worst.
- chgs 2y ago
  My Firefox installs on my various computers have a shard profile, so what are you on about?
- mdaniel 2y ago
  I may be feeding the trolls, but not only is there a sync mechanism, at least with Firefox you can self-host[1] such a thing, thereby doubly ensuring the data isn't used for something you disagree with If you're going to say that Firefox doesn't care about having users, point out its just stunningly stupid memory usage, blatantly stale developer tools (that one hurts me the worst because the Chrome dev-tooling is actually open source, so there's nothing stopping them from actually having Best In Class dev tooling other than no-fucks-given), or the har-de-har-har that comes up periodically of bugs that have been open longer than a lot of developers have been alive 1: https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs#running-via-docker https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs#running-v...
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    I find Firefox's memory usage and dev tooling better than Chrome.
  - fud101 2y ago
    Don't care about self hosting. That's not a feature to me, it's a burden. I would rather some cloud provider do that for me, thankfully Google does it for free and the convenience is much appreciated. It's the same reason i'd put my personal code in Github than some hard drive in the basement which may die anytime.

filleokus 2y ago

If I were to guess, it's to allow Google freedom in experimenting with changes to QUIC, since they control both the client and large server endpoints (Google Search, Youtube etc). They can easily release a sightly tweaked QUIC version in Chrome and support it on e.g Youtube, and then use metrics from that to inform proposed changes to the "real" standard (or just continue to run the special version for their own stuff). If they were to allow custom certificates, enterprises using something like ZScaler's ZIA to MITM employee network traffic, would risk to break when they tweak the protocol. If the data stream is completely encrypted and opaque to middleboxes, Google can more or less do whatever they want. Kinda related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_ossification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_ossification

dstroot 2y ago
Companies that use something like Zscaler would be highly likely to block QUIC traffic to force it onto TCP.
- josephg 2y ago
  That’s exactly what Google is hoping will happen. If QUIC is blocked entirely, there’s no risk that small tweaks to the quic protocol will break Google’s websites for any companies using these tools.
- tecleandor 2y ago
  Well, my company is doing it already. They split VPN traffic depending on the target domain (mostly for benign reasons), and that can't do it with QUIC, so they have to block QUIC traffic.
  - account42 2y ago
    What benign reason could there possibly be that isn't better based on IP addresses rather than domains.
    - tecleandor 2y ago

remus 2y ago

> I don't follow evolution of those protocols, but i am not sure how disallowing custom certificates has anything with "evolvability" of protocol ... One of the reasons for developing HTTP 2 and 3 was because it was so difficult to make changes to HTTP 1.1 because of middleware that relied heavily on implementation details, so it was hard to tweak things without inadvertently breaking people. They're trying to avoid a similar situation with newer versions.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

intelVISA 2y ago

QUIC exists to improve ad deliverability, to grant user freedom would counteract that goal.

jsheard 2y ago
How does QUIC improve ad deliverability?
- intelVISA 2y ago
  > We explicitly disallow non-publicly-trusted certificates in QUIC to prevent the deployment of QUIC interception software/hardware, as that would harm the evolvability of the QUIC protocol For Chrome at least..!
  - josephg 2y ago
    That has nothing to do with ad deliverability.
- superkuh 2y ago
  The entire protocol puts corporate/institutional needs first and foremost to the detriment of human person use cases. HTTP/3 makes all web things require CA TLS and means that if something in the TLS breaks (as it does every couple years with root cert expirations, version obsolecence, acme version obsolecence, etc) then the website is not accessible. Because there's no such thing as HTTP+HTTPS HTTP/3, self-signed HTTPS HTTP/3, or even, as in this case, custom CA TLS HTTP/3. It's designed entirely around corporate/institutional needs and is a terrible protocol for human people. HTTP+HTTPS websites can last decades without admin work. HTTP/3 websites can only last a few years at most.
  - persnickety 2y ago
    This doesn't have much to do with QUIC. If HTTP/3 was based upon another transport protocol, you'd have the exact same problems. You can use QUIC with custom certs without any trouble.

ozim 2y ago

There is a case of Kazakhstan installing certs to MITM citizens couple years ago and bunch of cases where bad actors can social engineer people to install certain for. I think because of KZ case browsers and Chrome especially went for using only their own cert store instead of operating system one.

jeroenhd 2y ago
Browsers responded by blacklisting the Kazakh certificate the same way they blacklist the certificates that came with pre-installed spyware on laptops from shit vendors like Lenovo. You don't need to block all certificates to prevent against a well-known bad certificate.

toast0 2y ago

If your company requires communications to be monitored, the typical enforcement is a custom company CA installed on company equipment. Then they intercept TLS and proxy it. Those proxies tend to be strict in what they accept, and slow to learn new protocol extensions. If Google wants to use Chrome browsers to try out a new version of QUIC with its servers, proxies make that harder.

cpitman 2y ago

Middle boxes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlebox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlebox) are a well known source of protocol stagnation. A protocol with extensibility usually needs the client and server to upgrade, but with middle boxes there are N other devices that potentially need updating as well. Where the user (client) and service provider (server) are motivated to adopt new feature sets, the owners of middle boxes might be far less so. In net, it makes it hard for protocols to evolve.