2 ms·

It would be nice to have the option of encryption without identity validation. Most people interact with most sites without it today -- over HTTP. The only reas

It would be nice to have the option of encryption without identity validation. Most people interact with most sites without it today -- over HTTP. The only reason we can't encrypt all those connections is the big scary error message browsers throw up when you do so without paying a CA for their signature.

jiggy2011 14y ago
The point of certs is to stop an attacker just sitting in the middle and handing out their own cert and you not being able to tell the difference.
kbenson 14y ago
It has nothing to do with paying money, it has to do with reputation. The fact the most the companies (CAs) that are willing to put their reputation on the line for you will do a bit of checking to make sure you're who you say you are, and that this process incurs some overhead, is a byproduct. Let's put it another way, would you really trust that you're talking to https://www.amazon.com https://www.amazon.com if it's trivial to get a cert for www.amazon.com[1] that's signed by a CA that the browsers include and trust[2]? How is it any different if the browser doesn't tell you the current cert is of dubious reputation? [1]: It is, I could generate one right now using openssl. [2]: It's not, that's why the system works.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- XorNot 14y ago
  Web-of-trust schemes are effective. The usual way we find out about stuff like this happening is word-of-mouth. Infrastructure for the process would automate it - after all the only thing you need is a way to say "this is what the certificate's hash should be".
  - kbenson 14y ago
    I'm not asserting that there's no other way to do it, just that getting rid of the popup that says the site is untrusted is not a solution, nor even a step in the right direction, IMHO.
JoshTriplett 14y ago
That wouldn't solve the problem in the posted article at all, though. The ad-inserting proxy could then just un-encrypt and re-encrypt.

jiggy2011 14y ago

The point of certs is to stop an attacker just sitting in the middle and handing out their own cert and you not being able to tell the difference.

kbenson 14y ago

It has nothing to do with paying money, it has to do with reputation. The fact the most the companies (CAs) that are willing to put their reputation on the line for you will do a bit of checking to make sure you're who you say you are, and that this process incurs some overhead, is a byproduct. Let's put it another way, would you really trust that you're talking to https://www.amazon.com https://www.amazon.com if it's trivial to get a cert for www.amazon.com[1] that's signed by a CA that the browsers include and trust[2]? How is it any different if the browser doesn't tell you the current cert is of dubious reputation? [1]: It is, I could generate one right now using openssl. [2]: It's not, that's why the system works.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 14y ago
Web-of-trust schemes are effective. The usual way we find out about stuff like this happening is word-of-mouth. Infrastructure for the process would automate it - after all the only thing you need is a way to say "this is what the certificate's hash should be".
- kbenson 14y ago
  I'm not asserting that there's no other way to do it, just that getting rid of the popup that says the site is untrusted is not a solution, nor even a step in the right direction, IMHO.

JoshTriplett 14y ago

That wouldn't solve the problem in the posted article at all, though. The ad-inserting proxy could then just un-encrypt and re-encrypt.