On 11/07/17 23:09, Yoav Nir wrote: > Whether one party to a conversation (phone or IP) has the right to > share private contents with a third party is a legal matter that > varies from country to country and from state to state. I only claim > that this draft does not change the fact that is true for PFS suites > in TLS 1.x and for all suites in TLS 1.3, that it’s impossible to > decrypt a recorded session without cooperation from either party, and > that cooperation has to start *before* the session is recorded.
But hang on, in this example wordpress.com are the equivalent of the POTS carrier - why is it a wiretap in the POTS case and not in the HTTP/TLS case? That makes no sense. Neither are a callee/caller just the same as when my vanity domain is used to transfer information between you and I via some wordpress plug-in I've installed. I do agree with the "*before*" statement and about optimisation but an optimised-X is still an X. S. > > That is not the case for POTS wiretap or for the RSA key exchange.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
