Comment by vladvasiliu
4 months ago
If you don't trust the http client to not do something stupid, this all applies for https, too. Plus, they can also bork on the ssl verification phase, or skip it altogether.
4 months ago
If you don't trust the http client to not do something stupid, this all applies for https, too. Plus, they can also bork on the ssl verification phase, or skip it altogether.
TLS stacks are generally significantly harder targets than HTTP ones. It's absolutely possible to use one incorrectly, but then we should also count all the ways you can misuse a HTTP, there are a lot more of those.
This statement makes no sense, TLS is a complicated protocol with implementations having had massive fun and quite public security issues, while HTTPS means you have both and need to deal with a TLS server feeing you malicious HTTP responses.
Having to harden two protocol implementations, vs. hardening just one of those.
(Having set up letsencrypt to get a valid certificate does not mean that the server is not malicious.)
TLS may be complicated for some people. But unlike HTTP, it has even formally proven correct implementations. You can't say the same about HTTP, PGP and Apt.
> Having to harden two protocol implementations, vs. hardening just one of those.
We're speaking of a MITM here. In that case no, you don't have to harden both. (Even if you did have to, ain't nobody taking on OpenSSL before all the rest, it's not worth the effort.)
I find it kind-of weird that you can't understand that if all a MITM can tamper with is the TLS then it's irrefutably a significantly smaller surface than HTTP+PGP+Apt.
4 replies →