27 ms·

> A pretty interesting feature of ECH is that the server does not need to validate the public name (it MAY) , so clients can use public_name's that middleboxes

> A pretty interesting feature of ECH is that the server does not need to validate the public name (it MAY) , so clients can use public_name's that middleboxes (read: censors) approve to connect to other websites. I'm trying to get this added to the RustTLS client[1], now might be a good time to pick that back up. Note that it is exactly this type of thing that makes age verification laws reasonable. You're making it technically impossible for even sophisticated parents to censor things without a non-solution like "don't let kids use a computer until they're 18", so naturally the remaining solution is a legal one to put liability on service operators. You're still ultimately going to get the censorship when the law catches up in whatever jurisdiction, but you'll also provide opacity for malware (e.g. ad and tracking software) to do its thing.

josefx 8mo ago
> "don't let kids use a computer until they're 18" Ideally you would lock them up in a padded room until then. There is a significant amount of shared real world space that isn't supervised and doesn't require any age verification to enter either.
- ndriscoll 8mo ago
  Notably, explicitly adult spaces like bars and porn shops are not among them, and a significant amount of virtual space would also not require age verification for the same reason.
  - tialaramex 8mo ago
    Rules vary. In Britain it was completely normal for say 15-year old me to be in a bar - it was illegal to buy booze but not a problem to be there. But when I travelled to Austin aged 19 I couldn't meet adult members of my team in the hotel bar because I wasn't old enough even though by then I was legal to drink, to marry, to go to war and so on in my own country. A little while after that, back in the UK, I drove my young cousin to the seaside. I didn't carry ID - I don't drink and you're not required to carry ID to drive here† so it was never necessary back then, but she did, so I try to buy her booze, they demand ID, I do not have any ID so I can't buy it even though I'm old enough to drink. So, she just orders her own booze, she's under age but they don't ask because she's pretty. † The law here says police are allowed to ask to see a driving license if you're in charge of a vehicle on a public road, but, since you aren't required to carry it they can require you to attend a police station and show documents within a few days. In practice in 2026 police have network access and so they can very easily go from "Jim Smith, NW1A 4DQ" to a photo and confirmation that you're licensed to drive a bus or whatever if you are co-operative.
  - Hizonner 8mo ago
    Like what? The AV maniacs apparently want to apply it to any and all "spaces" where you might actually communicate with anybody.
AgentK20 8mo ago
How does ECH make it impossible for parents to control their children's access to computers? Sure they can't block sites at the router level, just like your ISP won't be able to block things at the ISP level, but you (the parent) have physical access to the devices in question, and can install client-side software to filter access to the internet. The only thing this makes impossible is the laziest, and easiest to bypass method of filtering the internet.
- ndriscoll 8mo ago
  "Sure, you can use my wifi while you're over. Just enroll in MDM real quick". As brought up in another thread on the topic, you have things like web browsers embedded in the Spotify app that will happily ignore your policy if you're not doing external filtering.
  - AgentK20 8mo ago
    Fair point. I guess it (network-level filtering) just feels like a dragnet solution that reduces privacy and security for the population at large, when a more targeted and cohesive solution like client-side filtering, having all apps that use web browsers funnel into an OS-level check, etc would accomplish the same goals with improved security.
    - ndriscoll 8mo ago
      I think the population at large generally needs to get over their hangups (actually, maybe they have, and it's just techies). No one in a first world country cares if you visit pornhub just like no one cares if you go to amazon. Your ISP has had the ability to see this since the beginning of the web. It does not matter, but we can also have privacy laws restricting their (and everyone else like application/service vendors) ability to record and share that information. If you really want, you can hide it with a VPN or Tor. As long as not everything is opaque, it's easy to block that traffic if you'd like (so e.g. kids can't use it). In a first world country, this works fine since actually no one cares if you're hiding something, so you don't need to blend in. At a societal level, opaque traffic is allowed. You could have cooperation from everyone to hook into some system (California's solution), which I expect will be a cover for more "we need to block unverified software", or you could allow basic centralized filtering as we've had, and ideally compel commercial OS vendors to make it easy to root and MitM their devices for more effective security.
darig 8mo ago
[dead]
kstrauser 8mo ago
My right to access free information, and my global neighbor’s right to read unofficial information without being jailed or killed for it, outweighs your right to let your right use the Internet without supervision.
- ndriscoll 8mo ago
  Sure, and if we want to prioritize your ability to do so despite living in an authoritarian hellhole, those of us in countries that respect their citizens rights will have to put these verification systems in place. It just needs to be understood by technologists building this stuff that this is the tradeoff they're making. And it's likely a temporary win there until the authoritarian regimes mandate local monitoring software and send you to the gulag if they detect opaque traffic.
  - kstrauser 8mo ago
    Ironically, or perhaps not, I think we’re both posting from the US. I am.
bnjms 8mo ago
This is exactly reverse of the right idea. If parents need to censor things the solutions are the same as corpos are going to. Put the censors at the device or “mitm” the connection, either actually with a proxy, or maybe with a browser and curated apps - which is again on the device.
- ndriscoll 8mo ago
  This brings us back to "sure you can use my guest wifi, just install my root CA/enroll in MDM". I do agree though that it should be illegal for device manufacturers or application developers to use encryption that the device owner cannot MitM. The owner should always be able to install their own CA and all applications should be required to respect it.
  - pocksuppet 8mo ago
    Why would you want to censor based on network? You don't want to censor based on network, you want to censor based on device. If your 8yo kid is blocked from pornhub, that doesn't mean everyone on your network is blocked from pornhub, and you having the ability to even know if someone on your network is browsing pornhub is a security risk.
    - ndriscoll 8mo ago
      Because consumer devices are barely if at all capable of even setting policy, are basically incapable of enforcing it, and are generally adversarial. It's also easy to apply different policies to different clients at the network level.
      - pocksuppet 8mo ago
        The new California and Colorado laws force consumer devices to be capable of setting and enforcing policy.
        ndriscoll 8mo ago

josefx 8mo ago

> "don't let kids use a computer until they're 18" Ideally you would lock them up in a padded room until then. There is a significant amount of shared real world space that isn't supervised and doesn't require any age verification to enter either.

ndriscoll 8mo ago
Notably, explicitly adult spaces like bars and porn shops are not among them, and a significant amount of virtual space would also not require age verification for the same reason.
- tialaramex 8mo ago
  Rules vary. In Britain it was completely normal for say 15-year old me to be in a bar - it was illegal to buy booze but not a problem to be there. But when I travelled to Austin aged 19 I couldn't meet adult members of my team in the hotel bar because I wasn't old enough even though by then I was legal to drink, to marry, to go to war and so on in my own country. A little while after that, back in the UK, I drove my young cousin to the seaside. I didn't carry ID - I don't drink and you're not required to carry ID to drive here† so it was never necessary back then, but she did, so I try to buy her booze, they demand ID, I do not have any ID so I can't buy it even though I'm old enough to drink. So, she just orders her own booze, she's under age but they don't ask because she's pretty. † The law here says police are allowed to ask to see a driving license if you're in charge of a vehicle on a public road, but, since you aren't required to carry it they can require you to attend a police station and show documents within a few days. In practice in 2026 police have network access and so they can very easily go from "Jim Smith, NW1A 4DQ" to a photo and confirmation that you're licensed to drive a bus or whatever if you are co-operative.
- Hizonner 8mo ago
  Like what? The AV maniacs apparently want to apply it to any and all "spaces" where you might actually communicate with anybody.

AgentK20 8mo ago

How does ECH make it impossible for parents to control their children's access to computers? Sure they can't block sites at the router level, just like your ISP won't be able to block things at the ISP level, but you (the parent) have physical access to the devices in question, and can install client-side software to filter access to the internet. The only thing this makes impossible is the laziest, and easiest to bypass method of filtering the internet.

ndriscoll 8mo ago
"Sure, you can use my wifi while you're over. Just enroll in MDM real quick". As brought up in another thread on the topic, you have things like web browsers embedded in the Spotify app that will happily ignore your policy if you're not doing external filtering.
- AgentK20 8mo ago
  Fair point. I guess it (network-level filtering) just feels like a dragnet solution that reduces privacy and security for the population at large, when a more targeted and cohesive solution like client-side filtering, having all apps that use web browsers funnel into an OS-level check, etc would accomplish the same goals with improved security.
  - ndriscoll 8mo ago
    I think the population at large generally needs to get over their hangups (actually, maybe they have, and it's just techies). No one in a first world country cares if you visit pornhub just like no one cares if you go to amazon. Your ISP has had the ability to see this since the beginning of the web. It does not matter, but we can also have privacy laws restricting their (and everyone else like application/service vendors) ability to record and share that information. If you really want, you can hide it with a VPN or Tor. As long as not everything is opaque, it's easy to block that traffic if you'd like (so e.g. kids can't use it). In a first world country, this works fine since actually no one cares if you're hiding something, so you don't need to blend in. At a societal level, opaque traffic is allowed. You could have cooperation from everyone to hook into some system (California's solution), which I expect will be a cover for more "we need to block unverified software", or you could allow basic centralized filtering as we've had, and ideally compel commercial OS vendors to make it easy to root and MitM their devices for more effective security.

darig 8mo ago

[dead]

kstrauser 8mo ago

My right to access free information, and my global neighbor’s right to read unofficial information without being jailed or killed for it, outweighs your right to let your right use the Internet without supervision.

ndriscoll 8mo ago
Sure, and if we want to prioritize your ability to do so despite living in an authoritarian hellhole, those of us in countries that respect their citizens rights will have to put these verification systems in place. It just needs to be understood by technologists building this stuff that this is the tradeoff they're making. And it's likely a temporary win there until the authoritarian regimes mandate local monitoring software and send you to the gulag if they detect opaque traffic.
- kstrauser 8mo ago
  Ironically, or perhaps not, I think we’re both posting from the US. I am.

bnjms 8mo ago

This is exactly reverse of the right idea. If parents need to censor things the solutions are the same as corpos are going to. Put the censors at the device or “mitm” the connection, either actually with a proxy, or maybe with a browser and curated apps - which is again on the device.

ndriscoll 8mo ago
This brings us back to "sure you can use my guest wifi, just install my root CA/enroll in MDM". I do agree though that it should be illegal for device manufacturers or application developers to use encryption that the device owner cannot MitM. The owner should always be able to install their own CA and all applications should be required to respect it.
- pocksuppet 8mo ago
  Why would you want to censor based on network? You don't want to censor based on network, you want to censor based on device. If your 8yo kid is blocked from pornhub, that doesn't mean everyone on your network is blocked from pornhub, and you having the ability to even know if someone on your network is browsing pornhub is a security risk.
  - ndriscoll 8mo ago
    Because consumer devices are barely if at all capable of even setting policy, are basically incapable of enforcing it, and are generally adversarial. It's also easy to apply different policies to different clients at the network level.
    - pocksuppet 8mo ago
      The new California and Colorado laws force consumer devices to be capable of setting and enforcing policy.
      - ndriscoll 8mo ago