- From: Marc Fawzi <marc.fawzi@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:36:59 -0700
- To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Cc: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>, Nick Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACioZiv8xOH_ALLxoPy6s-M161QaoHzY1G-V-x46tn1jbdqhJQ@mail.gmail.com>
5 years later, we can now bypass TLS with ALS (application level security) while dancing around NIST recommended broken security standards in WebCrypto etc https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1f2k6fsIkDmIS1WyJAT0lXQmDuHIPeo9GDKfP1FY2rVc/edit?usp=sharing Enjoy this 5-year delayed response. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:07 AM Marc Fawzi <marc.fawzi@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://zitseng.com/archives/7489 > > *Government-Linked Certificate Authorities in OS X (zitseng.com > <http://zitseng.com>)* > > From the comments on Hacker News: > > "No, if they want to hack your SSL comms, they aren't going to do it by > using a MITM attack backed by a government-issued root CA, they are going > to do it by gaining access to a "neutral" CA (such as Verisign), and > obtaining the root certificate's private key. Now you would have a much > harder time of figuring out that something has gone wrong, but then, if > you're paranoid of the government spying on you, and you are using a CA > other than one you own yourself, you've already lost the battle." > > I agree, no protocol or method can stop a nation state because things > ultimately come down to physical security. > > But it is more reason to put the breaks on the idea that moving the whole > web to https is going to make a real difference. I don't think it will. > Once the users see https as a selective spying mechanism (open for govs, > closed for petty criminals) they really won't trust the web ever again, > unless you come up with a new protocol/story and keep evolving it in major > ways to stay ahead of the inevitable. > > Copying the wisdom below (via another developer): > > *On Derived Values* > > This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred > years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it > has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little > refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine > hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over > time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good. > > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> > wrote: > >> Eric J. Bowman wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > I encourage you to read more about cryptography and cryptographic >> > > network protocols, and to try your hand at subverting HTTP and HTTPS >> > > traffic (on your own systems and networks only, of course). I think >> > > you'll find that the available security guarantees and >> > > non-guarantees of HTTP and of HTTPS are very different from what >> > > you have expressed in this thread. >> > > >> > >> > Thanks, but I don't think you've understood what it is I'm trying to >> > express. >> > >> >> Particularly, Superfish illustrates that the guarantees and non- >> guarantees of HTTP and HTTPS are *exactly* what I tried to express in >> this thread. >> >> Yes, I know. You're above this list now, or at least until March 30, >> while you write a book on Web security. Let's just say I'm not pre- >> ordering. >> >> -Eric >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2019 01:38:03 UTC