3 ms·

>You can verify authenticity through signatures -- no need to encrypt the full body for that. If NYT or Yahoo Finance has a javascript widget to let a reader p

by jasode 12y ago

>You can verify authenticity through signatures -- no need to encrypt the full body for that. If NYT or Yahoo Finance has a javascript widget to let a reader pick a stock symbol, and dynamically choose start and end points of stock performance, what "body of text" is relevant to compute a "signature"? What if the NYT has an option to dynamically translate their stories into other languages, or rotate different related stories on a sidebar? Are servers constantly regenerating thousands of signatures for all unforseen combinations of dynamic text? And how do these multiple signatures continuously travel from the server to the browser? Presumably it would be an encrypted channel because cleartext signatures would be vulnerable to tampering. Would a browser then have twin-channels (2 ports) open for the NYT page? One channel is encrypted for the signatures and the other channel is the cleartext? Why would this scheme be "better"? You still have encryption somewhere.

sanxiyn 12y ago
Cleartext+signature is better, because, 1. signature can be much smaller than cleartext, so encryption cost is less, 2. cleartext can be inspected, 3. for static content, signature can be precomputed (can't do that with TLS), 4. for static content, cleartext can be sent as-is, for example using sendfile (can't do that with TLS), and possibly more advantages I haven't thought of in 5 minutes.
untitaker_ 12y ago
I suppose you have some encryption in this (I'm no expert), I'm only arguing against encrypting the full body, because for larger downloads, full-body encryption might cause extreme overhead (think Netflix or Steam)
- vtlynch 12y ago
  Except even Netflix has recently announced they are going to be performing "Full Body" encryption on their video streams and that it was financially worth it for them to do so. You can make value based arguments for/against pervasive encryption, but technical arguments against it continue to be debunked.
  - untitaker_ 12y ago
    Not sure where you get the idea that anecdotes count as "technical arguments", but let's stay with the Netflix example: According to another comment in this thread, Netflix measured severe performance drops with SSL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9465553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9465553
    - vtlynch 12y ago
      Not sure how one of the largest sites on the internet with intensive bandwidth successfully implementing encryption is anecdotal. Performance drop or not, they implemented it because they find the benefits to outweigh the costs. Netflix, and many others before them, have demonstrated it is possible to do so. Obviously there is an impact. But many people like to immediately say, "its too resource intensive! it cant be done! its not practical". Those people are wrong. It's expensive. It may take engineers. But it can be done.

by jasode 12y ago

sanxiyn 12y ago

Cleartext+signature is better, because, 1. signature can be much smaller than cleartext, so encryption cost is less, 2. cleartext can be inspected, 3. for static content, signature can be precomputed (can't do that with TLS), 4. for static content, cleartext can be sent as-is, for example using sendfile (can't do that with TLS), and possibly more advantages I haven't thought of in 5 minutes.

untitaker_ 12y ago

I suppose you have some encryption in this (I'm no expert), I'm only arguing against encrypting the full body, because for larger downloads, full-body encryption might cause extreme overhead (think Netflix or Steam)

vtlynch 12y ago
Except even Netflix has recently announced they are going to be performing "Full Body" encryption on their video streams and that it was financially worth it for them to do so. You can make value based arguments for/against pervasive encryption, but technical arguments against it continue to be debunked.
- untitaker_ 12y ago
  Not sure where you get the idea that anecdotes count as "technical arguments", but let's stay with the Netflix example: According to another comment in this thread, Netflix measured severe performance drops with SSL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9465553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9465553
  - vtlynch 12y ago
    Not sure how one of the largest sites on the internet with intensive bandwidth successfully implementing encryption is anecdotal. Performance drop or not, they implemented it because they find the benefits to outweigh the costs. Netflix, and many others before them, have demonstrated it is possible to do so. Obviously there is an impact. But many people like to immediately say, "its too resource intensive! it cant be done! its not practical". Those people are wrong. It's expensive. It may take engineers. But it can be done.