Re: Proposal: Marking HTTP As Non-Secure

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Michael Martinez <> wrote:
> On 12/18/2014 6:57 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 12/18/2014 06:46 PM, Michael Martinez wrote:
>>> No, what I am saying is that you can bypass the certificate for a MITM
>>> attack via a new technique that was published earlier this year.
>> Links, please.
> I'm not going to sit here and do the research that you should already be doing for yourself, but here is one link that explains how some smart phone apps were compromised.  It's disturbing to see that people working on security protocols are not aware of articles that have appeared on security blogs, in news media, and on university Websites.
> A Study of SSL Proxy Attacks on Android and iOS Mobile Applications
> This is only one example.

A skim of this shows that this is about mobile apps not correctly verifying TLS and has nothing to do with whether TLS as a protocol is broken. Probably you should learn how TLS actually works and read the papers you are linking before making extraordinary claims.

>>> If you
>>> compromise someone else's router you can control it from your own nearby
>>> router.  The compromised router with the valid certificate sends the
>>> user through whatever gateway you specify.
>> You seem to be saying now that the attacker does need a valid
>> certificate; earlier you claimed no certificate was needed.
> If you compromise a legitimate router you just hide behind the legitimate router and send people wherever you want.  What's one or two more hops even if you're only passing them through a gateway they know nothing about?  One recent study followed traffic on compromised routers that did nothing.  The researchers suggested that it may have been an early stage botnet either in testing or buildout.
>> The fact that HTTPS is not 100% perfect does not mean that HTTP is
>> somehow secure.
> HTTP doesn't need to be secure.  Explain to me why I should have to have connect to an HTTPS server just to read the news or a blog?  If I am not passing any information to the Website, why does it have to be hosted on HTTPS?  That is not trivial for the average Webmaster.
> I'm not just concerned about HTTPS attacks.  I'm also concerned about wasted effort being spent on unnecessary security because of Google's fear-mongering.  I get why they are doing this.  They were hurt in the public image by the Edward Snowden scandal.  But they sure don't mind telling everyone they have no reasonable expectation of privacy when their services are involved.
> BTW -- as you do your due diligence in these matters, look also for information on how YouTube videos can be used to compromise users' computers.  Gosh, that's an HTTPS Website, isn't it?  I feel safer already.
> Complexity that serves no useful purpose represents no improvement on the status quo.  Google and those who stand with it on these "privacy" issues need to make a much better case for coercing millions of Websites into using HTTPS.
> Browser developers do not need to participate in this public shaming game.
> I will leave off on this discussion at this point as it is clear to me I am better informed about what is happening than some, and I really am not going to be drawn into to sharing link after link in order to play a stalling game.
> Some of you guys have already made up your minds on this without doing proper research.  But you clearly haven't stopped to think about what a burden you will create for millions of Website owners who have no idea of how to support this insane initiative.  And that will just make them more dependent on self-serving solution providers like Google.
> Don't do this.  Please do NOT screw up the web with this nonsense.

Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 00:14:56 UTC