4 ms·
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point, so if I misunderstood you please correct me. First, TLS has three principles that, if you lose one, it becomes e
by iancarroll 12y ago
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point, so if I misunderstood you please correct me.
First, TLS has three principles that, if you lose one, it becomes essentially uselsss:
1) Authentication - you're talking to the right server
2) Encryption - nobody saw what was sent
3) Verification - nothing was modified in transit
Without authentication, you essentially are not protected against anything. Any router, any government can generate a cert for any server or hostname.
Perhaps you don't think EV certs have a purpose - personally, I think they're helpful to ensure that even if someone hijacks a domain they cannot issue an EV cert. Luckily, the cost of certificates is going down over time (usually you can get the certs you mentioned at $10/$150). That's what my startup (https://certly.io https://certly.io) is trying to help people get, cheap and trusted certificates (sorry for the promotion here)
- SilasX 12y agoEncryption without verification is not useless; it protects against snooping.
- iancarroll 12y agoIf you don't verify what is sent, I could easily send you a malicious web form. If you don't verify the key or cert behind the connection, anyone can claim to be x site.
- Tepix 12y agoStopping snooping by encrypting without strictly checking certificates the first time you connect is better than not using encryption because it stops dragnet surveillance. Also, active attacks (like MITM) are harder to do and easier to detect than passive attacks (snooping).
- iancarroll 12y agoThat would make dragnet surveillance easier. Just MITM everything and you'll be the Trusted Source™ for all traffic.
- SilasX 12y agoNobody’s suggesting that self-signed certs be treated as trusted or CA-cert equivalent, only that they not be regarded as worse than unencrypted http. In the proposals being discussed, that attack would no more of a threat than MitMs currently are against http.
- dvdkhlng 12y agoNo, that does not make dragnet surveillance easier. Dragnet surveillance depends on not being easily detectible. However, a SSL MITM attack is easily detected, as it changes the fingerprint of the SSL-key of the site you're talking too. By recording fingerprints and comparing them over time or for different users, or directly contacting the site's operator (using a secure communication channel, e.g. meeting him in person), the existence of a MITM is easily proven. BTW what you call "dragnet surveillance" is better described as "Pervasive Monitoring", see also RFC7258 "Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack" [1]. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258
- nandhp 12y agoIt doesn't prevent snooping -- you can still be MITM'd. It does however, make snooping much harder because it has to be done actively.