Ralph, On 24/10/17 20:36, Yoav Nir wrote: > > >> On 24 Oct 2017, at 22:27, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 24, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: >>> >>> I use an airplane as an example of a “captive” population, substitute any >>> similar group you want. >>> >>> • Yes, any box that sits between the client and the server can drop >>> traffic for whatever reason it wants. Such a box could today drop any >>> traffic that is protected using TLS. >>> >>> True, but that’s not the point. The point is by adding this extension into >>> the clientHello, we are providing middleboxes with another knob to control >>> traffic. I think we want to avoid that. And keep in mind it’s not just >>> HTTP, but *any* TLS-using traffic, such as many VPN’s. It wouldn’t >>> necessarily enable spying, but it could be used to guarantee that all >>> traffic is amenable to spying. >>> >>> As for how would such clients get promulgated? Some simple scenarious >>> include “surf for free on your flight, but use our Chromium-based browser >>> to do so, available for free here.” How many people on the plane would >>> click and download? >> >> Just to make sure I understand, in this scenario the special-purpose browser >> could just as easily, today, be a browser with no TLS at all? That is, I >> don't see why this scenario is specific to the visibility extension. > > Think of the children. > > We can’t just let them loose on the Internet, there’s predators out there. So > we will snoop on their traffic. To do that, we block all traffic that isn’t > snoopable, and we do it at the edge router in schools. All schools in our > state are required by law to install a firewall that does this. And we get > the mobile operators to do so as well (only for handsets in schools). > > Now either the mobile OS vendors make a browser that works in schools (at > least with a setting), or the school recommends a third party browser that > works in school. And best of all, this is *more secure* than regular TLS 1.3, > because it also protects your children from Internet predators. Think of the > children. > > You can’t make a claim like that for an HTTP-only browser, and worse still, > it won’t work on much of today’s Internet.
Just to note that the only substantive difference between draft-green and this is the please-screw-me extension in the ClientHello and Yoav's argument above (with or without all the obvious corollaries/variations) destroys that as a defence for your latest effort to square this circle. (This has been stated at least a couple of times/ways already.) If you Ralph or Russ have some new arguments for your draft that have not been countered already or wrt draft-green then I wish you would raise those, because I've not seen any that have survived. And if you have no such arguments then I think it'd be a fine thing to admit that truth openly. The underlying idea remains as bad as ever, for all the reasons I tried to summarise at [1] (to which I'll add Yoav's description above when I get a chance as it's a nice illustration). S. [1] https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil > > Yoav > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
