2 ms·

I disagree. Think about every time you use a service (website, email, etc.) you've used before via a network you don't trust (e.g. free WiFi). On the other han

I disagree. Think about every time you use a service (website, email, etc.) you've used before via a network you don't trust (e.g. free WiFi). On the other hand providing the option may give a false sense of security. I think the main reason SSH isn't MitM'd all over the place is it's a pretty niche service and very often you do have a separate authentication method by sending your public key over HTTPS.

saurik 2y ago
When I use a service over TLS on a network I don't trust, the premise is that I only will trust the connection if it has a certificate from a handful of companies trusted by the people who wrote the software I'm using (my browser/client and/or my operating system) to only issue said certificates to people who are supposed to have them (which these days is increasingly defined to be "who are in control of the DNS for the domain name at a global level", for better or worse, not that everyone wants to admit that). But like, no: the free Wi-Fi I'm using can't, in fact, MITM the encryption used by my connection... it CAN do a bunch of other shitty things to me that undermine not only my privacy but even undermine many of the things people expect to be covered by privacy (using traffic analysis on the size, timing, or destination of the packets that I'm sending), but the encryption itself isn't subject to the failure mode of SSH.
- ongy 2y ago
  The encryption itself may not be. Establishing the initial exchange of crypto key material can be. That's where certificates are important because they add identity and prevent spoofing. With TOFU, if the first use is on an insecure network, this exchange is jeopardized. And in this case, the encryption is not with the intended partner and thus does not need to be attacked.
woodruffw 2y ago
> I disagree. Think about every time you use a service (website, email, etc.) you've used before via a network you don't trust (e.g. free WiFi). Hm? The reason I do use those services over a network I don't trust is because they're wrapped in authenticated, encrypted channels. The authenticated encryption happens at a layer above the network because I don't trust the network.
tikkabhuna 2y ago
But isn't that exactly the previous posters point? Free WiFI someone can just MITM your connection, you would never know and you think its encrypted. Its the worst possible outcome. At least when there's no encryption browsers can tell the user to be careful.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  They could still tell the user to be careful without authentication. He wasn't proposing that encryption without authentication gets the full padlock and green text treatment.

saurik 2y ago

When I use a service over TLS on a network I don't trust, the premise is that I only will trust the connection if it has a certificate from a handful of companies trusted by the people who wrote the software I'm using (my browser/client and/or my operating system) to only issue said certificates to people who are supposed to have them (which these days is increasingly defined to be "who are in control of the DNS for the domain name at a global level", for better or worse, not that everyone wants to admit that). But like, no: the free Wi-Fi I'm using can't, in fact, MITM the encryption used by my connection... it CAN do a bunch of other shitty things to me that undermine not only my privacy but even undermine many of the things people expect to be covered by privacy (using traffic analysis on the size, timing, or destination of the packets that I'm sending), but the encryption itself isn't subject to the failure mode of SSH.

ongy 2y ago
The encryption itself may not be. Establishing the initial exchange of crypto key material can be. That's where certificates are important because they add identity and prevent spoofing. With TOFU, if the first use is on an insecure network, this exchange is jeopardized. And in this case, the encryption is not with the intended partner and thus does not need to be attacked.

woodruffw 2y ago

> I disagree. Think about every time you use a service (website, email, etc.) you've used before via a network you don't trust (e.g. free WiFi). Hm? The reason I do use those services over a network I don't trust is because they're wrapped in authenticated, encrypted channels. The authenticated encryption happens at a layer above the network because I don't trust the network.

tikkabhuna 2y ago

But isn't that exactly the previous posters point? Free WiFI someone can just MITM your connection, you would never know and you think its encrypted. Its the worst possible outcome. At least when there's no encryption browsers can tell the user to be careful.

IshKebab 2y ago
They could still tell the user to be careful without authentication. He wasn't proposing that encryption without authentication gets the full padlock and green text treatment.