On 25 March 2015 at 17:21, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews j...@eff.org wrote:
This seems like a big deal, no? That is, since SNI is one of the few
things not protected in the TLS handshake, it does seem spoofable. If
there's not something I'm missing, it seems like the proposal should
just drop DVSNI
This seems like a big deal, no? That is, since SNI is one of the few
things not protected in the TLS handshake, it does seem spoofable. If
there's not something I'm missing, it seems like the proposal should
just drop DVSNI altogether.
An attacker who fully controls the network is explicitly not
