4 ms·

Absolutely everywhere you use HTTP now. It's never worse than plaintext, and it's an effective replacement for it. Encrypted-untrusted prevents mass passive su

Absolutely everywhere you use HTTP now. It's never worse than plaintext, and it's an effective replacement for it. Encrypted-untrusted prevents mass passive surveillance, and requires it to be active MITM. And - as I've pointed out on the TLS WG list a few times - if an attacker can't tell you're being opportunistic, they might not be willing to risk being detected. We can make them take that risk by reducing the visible distinguishers there.

lucaspiller 12y ago
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear... With encrypted-trusted if you try an MITM, unless you have a valid SSL key, the browser will show a big error screen and not send any cookies. With encrypted-untrusted the browser wouldn't do that, so the cookies would still be sent. You don't even need to route the connection, you could just present an "Error connection to server" page and most users would just think the wifi isn't working. My question is given that what is the purpose of encrypted-untrusted? It's no more secure than HTTP for anything that uses session cookies or the like. Sure the connection is encrypted, but then all you are doing is stopping people seeing that you are accessing My Little Pony shows on YouTube. If it's a public hotspot at the coffee shop, they can probably see you watching it (IRL) anyway. Given the connection is untrusted, it wouldn't be hard for the NSA to do a MITM attack at the ISP level.
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  No illusion whatsoever. OE looks to browsers just like HTTP - no lock icon, nothing. This is http: protocol. For what it's worth, YouTube does use HTTPS for My Little Pony shows. Actually, there's a hidden service on Tor for that. (I'm not even joking.)
  - lucaspiller 12y ago
    Thanks, that makes sense. As long as people understand that although it's encrypted it's still not really safe. That could be the hard part though, as I expect a lot of people assume anything encrypted is safe (related, see malicious SHA1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8136526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8136526).
    - nightcracker 12y ago
      Sorry, but the link you posted is not even remotely related.

lucaspiller 12y ago

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear... With encrypted-trusted if you try an MITM, unless you have a valid SSL key, the browser will show a big error screen and not send any cookies. With encrypted-untrusted the browser wouldn't do that, so the cookies would still be sent. You don't even need to route the connection, you could just present an "Error connection to server" page and most users would just think the wifi isn't working. My question is given that what is the purpose of encrypted-untrusted? It's no more secure than HTTP for anything that uses session cookies or the like. Sure the connection is encrypted, but then all you are doing is stopping people seeing that you are accessing My Little Pony shows on YouTube. If it's a public hotspot at the coffee shop, they can probably see you watching it (IRL) anyway. Given the connection is untrusted, it wouldn't be hard for the NSA to do a MITM attack at the ISP level.

AlyssaRowan 12y ago
No illusion whatsoever. OE looks to browsers just like HTTP - no lock icon, nothing. This is http: protocol. For what it's worth, YouTube does use HTTPS for My Little Pony shows. Actually, there's a hidden service on Tor for that. (I'm not even joking.)
- lucaspiller 12y ago
  Thanks, that makes sense. As long as people understand that although it's encrypted it's still not really safe. That could be the hard part though, as I expect a lot of people assume anything encrypted is safe (related, see malicious SHA1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8136526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8136526).
  - nightcracker 12y ago
    Sorry, but the link you posted is not even remotely related.