4 ms·
> Having a self-signed cert > http. It really depends on what exactly you are talking about. For a Man-in-the-middle attack, your statement is false. For passi
by __david__ 12y ago
> Having a self-signed cert > http.
It really depends on what exactly you are talking about. For a Man-in-the-middle attack, your statement is false. For passive dragnet surveillance, your statement is true.
I think people underestimate MITM attacks...
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago> For a Man-in-the-middle attack, your statement is false. Not with certificate pinning.
- tomjen3 12y agoDoesn't really matter, does it? Even if MITM attacks are 99% of all attacks that doesn't leave you any worse of with a self-signed certificate. Better yet you are able to use a root certificate only trusted by most, rather than all, browsers because you secure that much of your traffic (which could easily be the 80+% that runs a modern browser, just not the few virus infected XP machines) which would enable actual innovation among CAs.
- Dylan16807 12y agoon a case by case basis: >= overall assessment: >