>"this system is even larger than in the past and as such slip-ups are only going to increase.” Yes, the system is certainly larger (as is the internet as a wh

>"this system is even larger than in the past and as such slip-ups are only going to increase.” Yes, the system is certainly larger (as is the internet as a whole) and slip-ups are natural. Luckily these 'slip ups' are typically simple things like certs expiring or supporting outdated cipher suites. These are just minor configuration fixes that things like Lets Encrypt aim to fix (both distribution and configuration of TLS). The thing is, even the worst 'slip ups' don't make you any more insecure than only supporting HTTP. _Any_ amount of TLS is better than none. That is a weak argument to start with. >"SSL is bloody expensive compared to not doing it." No it’s not. Certs are not expensive (another thing improved by Let’s Encrypt). This opinion exists from people spreading these kinds of rumors. It’s 2015 and the minor difference in processing power is negligible. If your web hosting can’t handle the difference in processing costs, you need to look for a better hosting platform. >"Not only does that mean that you are downloading a really big certificate, but also that the SSL encryption is a bit of a lie for you as a user.” 'Really big certificate' when has this been an issue for anyone ever? A CDN providing SSL is still better than no SSL. That "lie" _still_ protects the user at their host->Local Router->ISP->CDN. This is massive value not offered via just HTTP. >"The cost of deploying SSL should not be underestimated, and forcing SSL on people out of principle should consider that.” The cost raised by implementing SSL vs the cost of hosting a web application is negligible. It's pennies on the dollar to ensure your users can have a safer experience using your site. Security comes at a cost, this is part of life. >"The second method is to go to the local ISP and tell them to disable access to it. The rather is the better option in the sense that it only affects the citizens of that country and it isolates the problem. Unfortunately, SSL prevents this.” Yep it's a real shame that it's harder to censor websites. Joe Shmoe the intended reader shouldn't use SSL just in case the government wants to blacklist his domain. >"Even Ad providers (Superfish cough) started to destroy SSL traffic because it became so widespread that it was necessary. I'm firmly of the opinion that none of that would have happened if SSL traffic was less common. “ THE WHOLE REASON THESE AD PROVIDERS ARE BREAKING SSL IS BECAUSE THEY CAN NO LONGER WILLY NILLY READ/INJECT YOUR TRAFFIC. This exactly what Version + AT&T's "super cookie" was doing to HTTP traffic. SSL _prevents_ shit like this from happening. SSL being less common in no way equals less ads reading/injecting your content. >"The greatest impact on user's safety would have been the development of per user encryption for public Wifi access points.” This exists. It's called IPSec and it's a way bigger hassle than SSL, so we all agreed in the 90's that it made more sense to prioritize SSL over IPSec. >"Instead what happened is that now every larger website has to implement SSL to protect against the only realistic attack vector which is someone surfing at Starbucks.” This is absolutely false. I would argue the _most_ users are at risk further down the pipeline, not at Starbucks. We know for a fact that ISP's like Verizon have injected cookies into HTTP traffic leaving their networks and we know for a fact that Governments have done dragnet collections of HTTP traffic. SSL protects users at every step of their internet journey, suggesting half ass encryption is bullshit. >"I now no longer claim I have any understanding of SSL at all.” This is the most accurate statement he makes in the entire article. >"Cryptography is black magic.” Here in lies the problem. It's not. It's actually the opposite, it's open source and it's inner workings can be explained by a multitude of resources. The various features you call 'bugs' in SSL/TLS are things the security community has refined over many years. Crypto is hard, and a lot of things that seem intuitive are not. TLS exists in it's current state because it accomplishes what we want crypto to do. Saying "everyone fuck this thing I'm frustrated with" is counter productive to the whole process. ANY amount of SSL is better for the user than none. >"but the truth is that the most popular cryptography library (OpenSSL) is an old and complex mess. Even if the library itself would be okay, there are so many ways to misuse it and it's really badly documented.” Oh boi let's jump on the OpenSSL hate wagon. We know OpenSSL has had it's issues and there are lots of people helping to make it better (https://cryptoservices.github.io/…/2015/03/09/openssl-audit… https://cryptoservices.github.io/…/2015/03/09/openssl-audit…). The fact that OpenSSL has the occasional implementation error doesn't make the SSL/TLS protocol any worse. >"Gone are the days where you could fully understand how a web application works.“ This has gone from trying to make some kind of point to full whine fest. Yes, web applications have become complicated. So have all parts of technology. As things grow their internals become more intricate and complicated. Also gone are the days where you can fully understand the inner workings of your car engine. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use airbags. >"As of recently the Python package installer downloads every package via SSL. Why? There is no technical reason for this unless you want to hide from someone that you are downloading a specific Python package which seems pointless." Or you know, you don't want packages injected/swapped out with malware when you download them. If I'm downloading code I'm about to run on my system, you better be sure as hell I'm going to want to want integrity and confidentiality of said code. TLS is a standardized way of ensuring both of those things. >"It's plenty to download the package over an untrusted connection and to then verify the checksum with one you downloaded from a secure place." WHERE IS THIS MAGICALLY SECURE PLACE? HOW DOES ONE COMMUNICATE WITH THIS SECURE PLACE? For a guy who considers SSL to be too much effort, I'm to believe that everything he downloads is checked against checksums received via his 'secure place'