3 ms·

Considering that your local network is trusted defies "defense in depth" - do you use Telnet for your admin? What happens with your Wifi, or if one of your comp

Considering that your local network is trusted defies "defense in depth" - do you use Telnet for your admin? What happens with your Wifi, or if one of your computers gets pwned and starts becoming a packet-sniffing machine? Google feel it's potentially sensitive data. After all, it's showing what you're reading, what you're downloading, what you're seeing. Laptops/desktops are way too big to feel any noticeable effect from modern encryption: that's nonsense, look at the benches. You won't even feel that impact on a Raspberry Pi (actually the VC4 is surprisingly good at some crypto - I'm halfway to a ChaCha implementation on it, if I can just sort out the diagonal round permutation!). TLS 1.2+extensions and 1.3 will have things which make good encryption even faster: the use of fast AEADs like AES-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305, and ECDHE using Curve25519, etc. This decision is underpinned by, and supported by, all that work. If your use case was toasters and 8-bit microcontrollers (as opposed to 16-bit or 32-bit AVR-type ones), then you'd have a discussion, but I've seen efficient Atmega implementations of this, I could probably cook something up for a 68000 myself, and anyone who really fancies a challenge should go for a 6502 or z80 implementation. I'd simply respond that lack of privacy is not costless, and you've really no excuse anymore.

XorNot 12y ago
Try using SSH for big file transfers. Oh right - you don't - because the throughput is CPU limited by the encryption. Multithread it? Sure, now watch as your 8 core machine peaks pushing a gigabit of encrypted data which is actually just an image file of a movie you already have. You encrypt credentials (because they grant access) and sensitive data - like bank details. You don't encrypt the legal rips of movies you have streaming over your network because hey, that would be a complete waste of energy and processing power for literally zero-benefit. Always on encryption is pointless and the type of always on encryption with HTTP 2 people talk about is worse then pointless. The idea that MitM is difficult is a farce - any number of WPS hijacking techniques involve forcing the host offline temporarily so it has to re-authenticate. The same thing would apply here. Taking what, 2 seconds? You talk about defense in depth - one aspect of that is that a leaking side-channel has finite bandwidth and can't possibly hope to capture "all the data" which means it has to try and capture important data.

XorNot 12y ago

Try using SSH for big file transfers. Oh right - you don't - because the throughput is CPU limited by the encryption. Multithread it? Sure, now watch as your 8 core machine peaks pushing a gigabit of encrypted data which is actually just an image file of a movie you already have. You encrypt credentials (because they grant access) and sensitive data - like bank details. You don't encrypt the legal rips of movies you have streaming over your network because hey, that would be a complete waste of energy and processing power for literally zero-benefit. Always on encryption is pointless and the type of always on encryption with HTTP 2 people talk about is worse then pointless. The idea that MitM is difficult is a farce - any number of WPS hijacking techniques involve forcing the host offline temporarily so it has to re-authenticate. The same thing would apply here. Taking what, 2 seconds? You talk about defense in depth - one aspect of that is that a leaking side-channel has finite bandwidth and can't possibly hope to capture "all the data" which means it has to try and capture important data.