3 ms·
You obviously havn't spent much time looking either, have you? You could look at section 15 here for instance: http://phk.freebsd.dk/words/httpbis.html http:/
by phkamp 12y ago
You obviously havn't spent much time looking either, have you?
You could look at section 15 here for instance: http://phk.freebsd.dk/words/httpbis.html http://phk.freebsd.dk/words/httpbis.html
With respect to key-exchange, maybe the problem is that I do understand, and therefore know that there is a difference between privacy and secrecy ?
Some places we want privacy, some places we want secrecy.
Mandating privacy everywhere makes it almost mandatory for police-states to trojan the privacy infrastructure (ie: CA's -- yes they already did), and therefore we have neither privacy nor secrecy anymore.
PS: Dangerous for who ?
PPS": Google "Operation Orchestra" if you don't undstand the previous question.
- arielby 12y agoPolice-States would try to trojan the CA infrastructure anyway – its too much tempting a target. Inspecting proxies work well enough with HTTP 1.1, there's no real need to improve them, and even if we do, it should be done via a proxy mechanism, rather than via sending more things in plaintext than we have. Anyway, HTTPS routers can (and should) terminate SSL, and in that case they can even read the Host from SNI.
- aestetix 12y agoPrivacy isn't a binary. Neither is secrecy. It's a function of relationships. So the question isn't whether children have privacy, but against whom are they able to be private, in what regard? While I'm generally ok with parents knowing where their kids are, I'm not as ok with a random creep in the neighborhood knowing. As far as criminals and prisoners, it's far more granular than that. If I get caught shoplifting, does that suddenly mean all my medical records are up for grabs? If I am a prisoner, am I allowed to refuse to see someone who comes to visit me?