3 ms·

No, you don't need to pass the TLS connection to China to perform an MITM. Superfish would generate a cert at installation time, unique to the specific user th

No, you don't need to pass the TLS connection to China to perform an MITM. Superfish would generate a cert at installation time, unique to the specific user that was being targeted. The channel back to China would be protected by TLS too, but it wouldn't be MITM'able by anyone except Superfish HQ, unless they lose their private key. I disagree that it's poor form to react to downvotes when they're wholly unjustified. Maybe I did a bad job explaining myself. In that case, I should explain myself better. That's a positive thing, not a negative. Reddit has this stupid trope like "Complaining about downvotes? That's a paddlin'." Which if you think about it just a self-reinforcing culture of bandwagoning. But I imagine that this is now entirely offtopic and boring, so let's focus on the tech.

jsmthrowaway 12y ago
Again, irrelevant. This thread isn't "sillysaurus3 imagines how he would implement the perfect proxy," it's correcting an assumption about the actual existing proxy. I suggest if you want to pursue your off topic study of how to implement a proxy that doesn't introduce latency while performing the functionality, you do it elsewhere. You should also read the HN guidelines before explaining downvote etiquette to me, because they will surprise you, apparently.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Why should I do it elsewhere? This is a thread about an interesting tech topic, and maybe some people might find that aspect interesting. This is the last comment I'm going to write to you because this is now wholly uninteresting to readers. I'll never understand this mindset of "Oh, well, there might be a misunderstanding here, but rather than clarify it calmly and rationally, I'll take this as a license to be angry and mean." Who cares if someone thought that the proxy was going to work like X, but it turned out to work like Y? What matters is that if it can work like Z, then Z should be pointed out, especially if it enables some interesting aspect that people previously hadn't noticed. Anyway, you've successfully killed the fun of HN for me for the day, so see you later.
  - jsmthrowaway 12y ago
    It says a lot about you that you think a calm explanation of your downvotes, as you are plainly in hysterics over them, is me being angry and mean. I meant elsewhere in the thread. You corrected someone who was correcting someone else, and you were wrong about the spirit of your correction. I was calmly suggesting that if you want to think through such a hypothetical you shouldn't do it as a misplaced correction. You really need to unplug for a bit. I'm dead serious.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Okay, I see. Thank you for the explanations. You're probably right. EDIT: Yeah, I was being an idiot. Thanks for the reality check.

jsmthrowaway 12y ago

Again, irrelevant. This thread isn't "sillysaurus3 imagines how he would implement the perfect proxy," it's correcting an assumption about the actual existing proxy. I suggest if you want to pursue your off topic study of how to implement a proxy that doesn't introduce latency while performing the functionality, you do it elsewhere. You should also read the HN guidelines before explaining downvote etiquette to me, because they will surprise you, apparently.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Why should I do it elsewhere? This is a thread about an interesting tech topic, and maybe some people might find that aspect interesting. This is the last comment I'm going to write to you because this is now wholly uninteresting to readers. I'll never understand this mindset of "Oh, well, there might be a misunderstanding here, but rather than clarify it calmly and rationally, I'll take this as a license to be angry and mean." Who cares if someone thought that the proxy was going to work like X, but it turned out to work like Y? What matters is that if it can work like Z, then Z should be pointed out, especially if it enables some interesting aspect that people previously hadn't noticed. Anyway, you've successfully killed the fun of HN for me for the day, so see you later.
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  It says a lot about you that you think a calm explanation of your downvotes, as you are plainly in hysterics over them, is me being angry and mean. I meant elsewhere in the thread. You corrected someone who was correcting someone else, and you were wrong about the spirit of your correction. I was calmly suggesting that if you want to think through such a hypothetical you shouldn't do it as a misplaced correction. You really need to unplug for a bit. I'm dead serious.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Okay, I see. Thank you for the explanations. You're probably right. EDIT: Yeah, I was being an idiot. Thanks for the reality check.