3 ms·
Kind of related, but a little off-topic: I think tying name checking to encrypting traffic was a mistake. They are two different use cases, and shouldn't have b
by ghusto 2y ago
Kind of related, but a little off-topic: I think tying name checking to encrypting traffic was a mistake. They are two different use cases, and shouldn't have been so tightly coupled.
Sometimes I care only about my traffic being encrypted, and resent having to jump through hoops to ignore the name mismatch. Sometimes I care only about assurances that the name is correct, and don't care about having the traffic encrypted.
- Jasper_ 2y agoEncryption without authentication is not very useful; if unauthenticated, your ISP could middle-man your connection and effectively decrypt everything while making you think you're encrypted. If that's not in your threat model, and you want encryption for another purpose, then I could understand that, but currently, protecting the endpoints against malicious attackers in the middle is the big value of TLS.
- SahAssar 2y ago> Sometimes I care only about my traffic being encrypted, and resent having to jump through hoops to ignore the name mismatch. Why do you care about encryption without authentication? Without TOFU, PKI or a preshared key what is the value? > Sometimes I care only about assurances that the name is correct, and don't care about having the traffic encrypted. So signing?