4 ms·

If browsers got fixed to not freak out on self-signed certificates, this wouldn't even be an issue, HTTPS could be a default.

mcv 13y ago
But how do you distinguish a self-signed certificate from a MITM NSA-signed one?
- 0x006A 13y ago
  NSA does not use self-signed certificates for MITM, they have access to certificate authorities to get there own certificates that show up as valid in your browser.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
Sort of. You actually do need to know when a certificate is self-signed because it means the connection isn't authenticated even if it's encrypted. But what they ought to do is to accept the self-signed certificate, show something other than the usual lock icon but do the encryption anyway, and then freak out if the certificate changes before it expires.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  The point is, sometimes you just don't care about authority, you just care about the encryption. HTTPS with self-signed certificates is better than moving plaintext over the wire, in the same way PGP is better than moving plaintext over the wire. It doesn't matter that you don't have a "trusted" peer to tell you this PGP signer is who it says it is. As long as you can trust you acquired his key in a secure way (e.g., out-of-band), it's better than the alternative. Plus, MITM concerns over self-signed certs are moot. This vulnerability exists at the DNS level anyway.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nwh 13y ago
MITM would be unnoticeable then.
- zobzu 13y ago
  Unless you visited the site before. (like ssh). Or if the trust was provided through another channel (DNS).
  - nwh 13y ago
    If somebody can tamper with your HTTP connections on the fly, they can surely rewrite the DNS too.
    - zobzu 13y ago
      maybe, maybe not they use separate paths in general so its quite a bit hard as you need to be closer to the client, or compromise more hosts. not saying it's the bulletproof solution tho. it's definitely not. its just that some services (like ssh) actually provide that feature.

mcv 13y ago

But how do you distinguish a self-signed certificate from a MITM NSA-signed one?

0x006A 13y ago
NSA does not use self-signed certificates for MITM, they have access to certificate authorities to get there own certificates that show up as valid in your browser.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

Sort of. You actually do need to know when a certificate is self-signed because it means the connection isn't authenticated even if it's encrypted. But what they ought to do is to accept the self-signed certificate, show something other than the usual lock icon but do the encryption anyway, and then freak out if the certificate changes before it expires.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
The point is, sometimes you just don't care about authority, you just care about the encryption. HTTPS with self-signed certificates is better than moving plaintext over the wire, in the same way PGP is better than moving plaintext over the wire. It doesn't matter that you don't have a "trusted" peer to tell you this PGP signer is who it says it is. As long as you can trust you acquired his key in a secure way (e.g., out-of-band), it's better than the alternative. Plus, MITM concerns over self-signed certs are moot. This vulnerability exists at the DNS level anyway.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nwh 13y ago

MITM would be unnoticeable then.

zobzu 13y ago
Unless you visited the site before. (like ssh). Or if the trust was provided through another channel (DNS).
- nwh 13y ago
  If somebody can tamper with your HTTP connections on the fly, they can surely rewrite the DNS too.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    maybe, maybe not they use separate paths in general so its quite a bit hard as you need to be closer to the client, or compromise more hosts. not saying it's the bulletproof solution tho. it's definitely not. its just that some services (like ssh) actually provide that feature.