Re: Mandatory encryption

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:54:00PM -0700, Mike Belshe wrote:
> > The issue with HTTP/2 will indeed be the same as with IPv6 : HTTP/2 will
> > be deployed between the browser and the load balancer, and everything
> > behind will remain HTTP/1 due to the added nuisances of deploying 2.0
> > everywhere. Almost nobody does IPv6 between LB and server nowadays, it's
> > added cost for no benefit.
> >
> > This will force us to continue to support the crappy parsers of 1.1
> > forever and not to have MUX between the LB and the server, and that's
> > precisely the situation I'd like to avoid, by having a protocol which
> > *supports* more privacy but does not impose it where it's not expected.
> >
> This is not true; you can use whatever you want in your backoffice.  I've
> talked about this many times before, with or without TLS; whatever you
> want.   It's the browser channel which will be TLS only.

That's why I want the protocol not to rely on TLS but to be self-sufficient.
If we can use HTTP/2 over TCP then I can disable TLS in the backoffice.
Otherwise I cannot and am forced to use HTTP/1 instead.

> > I'm really against making such a thing mandatory because it will only
> > improve privacy on a few services which actually do not need it and will
> > globally deteriorate the overall security by lowering the level of control
> > of users.
> >
> We just disagree.  And I keep going back to the same argument over and over:
> Show me the user that will stand up and say, "Yes, I would like my
> communications to be snoopable and changeable by 3rd parties without my
> knowledge."

I am one of these users. When I'm browsing in clear text, I know my
communications are snoopable and changeable and I don't care. When I
care I use https. Using cleartext has many benefits for me as a user.
It's faster and I don't have to constantly click "I accept" on every
pop-up that is raised due to too difficult certificate management for
the server, or the mess of keeping a CA list up to date.

So I am one such user who doesn't want to be forced to face all the
discomfort of TLS when it does not make sense. TLS for no reason is
already badly used, there is no reason it will suddenly become better
when made mandatory. It's the opposite, sites having it good will not
improve and remain the same, but the number of sites which will have
to deal with it when not expected will increase the number of false
alarms on the user side. We don't want to accustom users to blindly
click on this warning anymore.


Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 07:15:10 UTC