W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Mandatory encryption *is* theater

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:18:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNenAQvhoMMNmWj_hjjV9rrZPQT92pNGXaM3Kdm0T_bu=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We've seen that the network delays bytes on some ports because (we assume)
of inspecting proxies, even when the data is incomprehensible to the proxy.
If the bytes are merely signed then the bytes are visible and modification
is still performed-- the modification becomes time-domain, e.g.
dropping/delaying packets, etc.

In any case, if you're doing the work of signing, why not just encrypt?

-=R


On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Salvatore Loreto <
salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:

>  so now I have a question
> if one of the reasons to use encryption is to let the bytestreams traverse
> the networks without modifications
> why don't just sign them instead that encrypt them?
>
> /Sal
>
>
> On 8/25/13 9:09 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
>
> Remember that encryption != security.
> Part of the reasons to use encryption have nothing to do with security,
> but rather reliability-- encrypted bytestreams traverse the network without
> modification far more successfully.
>
>  There should be no reason that the client shouldn't be able to request
> this more reliable channel when the URL is HTTP.
>
>  As far as I understand, this is what we're talking about-- the client's
> ability to request an encrypted channel for HTTP urls.
>
>  -=R
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>  Will,
>>
>>
>> On 8/25/13 5:29 PM, William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Another key distinction is encryption does not require authentication, so
>> a proper cert is not mandatory. I'm surprised you mention requiring a
>> proper cert given that you clearly understand a proper cert isn't
>> necessary, given your reply to Yoav below. I think it's worthwhile to
>> discuss the asserted benefit, but any statement about the current proposal
>> requiring proper certificates sounds factually incorrect as far as I can
>> tell. Did I miss something here?
>>
>>
>>  Possibly you did or possibly I did.  I have two specific issues with
>> anonymous encryption:
>>
>> 1.  The threat it is addressing may be better dealt with at other layers;
>> and
>> 2.  It is often sold as more than it is.
>>
>> As I wrote, I do like the idea of DANE + DNSSEC and then expanding on
>> that.  Got code for that?  If it's real privacy (not just encryption) then
>> I'd probably be convinced (there is a matter of responsibility, but I
>> think  DANE + DNSSEC could get us there, as can certs from credible CAs).
>>
>> And just for the record:
>>
>>
>> Yes, the proposal is that it is mandatory for the server to implement and
>> offer encryption.
>>
>>
>>  That is in fact my objection, particularly the "offer" part.  You seem
>> to be assuming (forgive me if you are not) that many implementations small
>> and large AND many deployments small and large will do a whole lot of work
>> for that offer where past experience shows that they won't, but rather that
>> it will in fact hinder implementation and deployment of the rest of HTTP2.
>> There is an obvious question about the goals for HTTP2...
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Salvatore Loreto, PhDwww.sloreto.com
>
>
Received on Sunday, 25 August 2013 20:19:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC