4 ms·

This is a reminder why all the traffic should be encrypted and obfuscated (i.e. no SNI in clear text). Ideally, the traffic should be encrypted to resemble a ra

This is a reminder why all the traffic should be encrypted and obfuscated (i.e. no SNI in clear text). Ideally, the traffic should be encrypted to resemble a random noise. If you are making an app, you can embed public keys and use those to completely encrypt traffic, without relying on CAs. For example, Telegram does this, using a homemade encryption protocol that has no clear-text SNI like HTTPS. As I remember, WeChat also uses some home-grown form of obfuscation. As a bonus, this makes it more difficult for telecoms to discriminate against certain sites or apps and helps enforce net neutrality no matter if they like it or not.

anonymousiam 10mo ago
It's also a reminder that no mater how secure you think you are, some third party may have access. Consider that TAO (or SSF) can probably get through your firewall and router, and maybe into the management engine on the servers with your critical data. The only thing you've got going for you is that they will (probably) keep your data secure (for themselves).
- jwpapi 10mo ago
  I mean if I create an offline private key and encrypt my message to be only read with my public key and I’ve learned about math and encryption. I can be assured that my receiver would need to be compromised. I don’t like these general observation comments. This kind of makes it unappealing to learn about encryption, but it’s worth it and makes you choose either a proper encrypted software or use a key for secret messages.
saghm 10mo ago
Isn't the whole issue with net neutrality that ISPs would be incentivized to prioritize their own traffic (or that of companies they collaborate with)? How does making it harder for them to identify traffic for my app/service/whatever stop them from doing that? As long as they can identify the traffic they do want to prioritize (by companies who haven't done the process you describe), it's not obvious to me why they wouldn't have trouble deprioritizing my stuff based on them at least knowing that it's not their own, effect if they don't know whose it is? "Random noise" isn't likely to look like it's their special favorite traffic. If everyone including the priority traffic did this, then I guess it would have an effect on net neutrality, then I could see that it would make a difference, but I don't see how that could be construed as "whether they like it or not" given that they could just as easily not implement this if they didn't "like it". That's not to say this isn't worth doing for the privacy and security benefits, but I'm struggling to see how this would have any real-world influence on net neutrality.
- codedokode 10mo ago
  > How does making it harder for them to identify traffic for my app/service/whatever stop them from doing that? You can masquerade your protocol as HTTPS with SNI of that company, for example. Filtering by IP is very inconvenient (they change all the time), so the telecom would probably look at SNI.
  - saghm 10mo ago
    I still think I'm missing something. My understanding of how telecoms would abuse identifying traffic to violate net neutrality would be that they need to identify the traffic they want to prioritize, not deprioritize. Is your understanding different, or does this somehow give the ability to make your traffic indistinguishable to traffic that they favor (and therefore would either control directly or would be able to provide instructions to the controller to be able to make identifiable in some way)? What you're describing to me sounds like you're saying my traffic isn't possible to distinguish from other random traffic, but my argument is that they're never going to be prioritizing random traffic; they'll be prioritizing traffic that they can identify, which will likely not act in the way you describe precisely because it would make it impossible to prioritize. My traffic being anonymous doesn't somehow stop them from throwing it in to the lower priority lanes with everyone else because they don't recognize it; if anything, it seems like it's likely to guarantee it as well, because anything not recognizably a VIP doesn't get to go in the VIP lane.

anonymousiam 10mo ago

It's also a reminder that no mater how secure you think you are, some third party may have access. Consider that TAO (or SSF) can probably get through your firewall and router, and maybe into the management engine on the servers with your critical data. The only thing you've got going for you is that they will (probably) keep your data secure (for themselves).

jwpapi 10mo ago
I mean if I create an offline private key and encrypt my message to be only read with my public key and I’ve learned about math and encryption. I can be assured that my receiver would need to be compromised. I don’t like these general observation comments. This kind of makes it unappealing to learn about encryption, but it’s worth it and makes you choose either a proper encrypted software or use a key for secret messages.

saghm 10mo ago

Isn't the whole issue with net neutrality that ISPs would be incentivized to prioritize their own traffic (or that of companies they collaborate with)? How does making it harder for them to identify traffic for my app/service/whatever stop them from doing that? As long as they can identify the traffic they do want to prioritize (by companies who haven't done the process you describe), it's not obvious to me why they wouldn't have trouble deprioritizing my stuff based on them at least knowing that it's not their own, effect if they don't know whose it is? "Random noise" isn't likely to look like it's their special favorite traffic. If everyone including the priority traffic did this, then I guess it would have an effect on net neutrality, then I could see that it would make a difference, but I don't see how that could be construed as "whether they like it or not" given that they could just as easily not implement this if they didn't "like it". That's not to say this isn't worth doing for the privacy and security benefits, but I'm struggling to see how this would have any real-world influence on net neutrality.

codedokode 10mo ago
> How does making it harder for them to identify traffic for my app/service/whatever stop them from doing that? You can masquerade your protocol as HTTPS with SNI of that company, for example. Filtering by IP is very inconvenient (they change all the time), so the telecom would probably look at SNI.
- saghm 10mo ago
  I still think I'm missing something. My understanding of how telecoms would abuse identifying traffic to violate net neutrality would be that they need to identify the traffic they want to prioritize, not deprioritize. Is your understanding different, or does this somehow give the ability to make your traffic indistinguishable to traffic that they favor (and therefore would either control directly or would be able to provide instructions to the controller to be able to make identifiable in some way)? What you're describing to me sounds like you're saying my traffic isn't possible to distinguish from other random traffic, but my argument is that they're never going to be prioritizing random traffic; they'll be prioritizing traffic that they can identify, which will likely not act in the way you describe precisely because it would make it impossible to prioritize. My traffic being anonymous doesn't somehow stop them from throwing it in to the lower priority lanes with everyone else because they don't recognize it; if anything, it seems like it's likely to guarantee it as well, because anything not recognizably a VIP doesn't get to go in the VIP lane.