Live data from Hacker News

Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

medium.com

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#21
I see a lot of people bashing CloudFlare, but to be fair:

1. Thanks to them many sites got SSL and sniffing your local network/ISP is source of majority of the problems.

2. Some SSL is better than no SSL, though it can also create illusion of full security.

3. You can configure encryption between CloudFlare and your origin. You probably should do that.

4. CloudFlare this year (May 2016) announce better tooling to encrypt between origin and their own CDN servers: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-ca-encryption-origin/

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#22
post #10

So is it reasonable to say?: piratebays fault for not enforcing SSL between their origin servers and cloud flare?

Sort of, but the real fault lies with people actively censoring free speech.

TPB could and should mitigate this attack with Origin TLS, yes.

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#23

I see a lot of people bashing CloudFlare, but to be fair: 1. Thanks to them many sites got SSL and sniffing your local network/ISP is source of majority of the problems. 2. Some SSL is better than no SSL, though it can also create illusion of full security. 3. You can configure encryption between CloudFlare and your origin. You probably should do that. 4. CloudFlare this year (May 2016) announce better tooling to enc…

Or you could get a let's encrypt certificate and have actual security for free.

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#25
Hi, OP here.

There are basically two important points from this story.

> CF can't tell if it's the actual website or the notice from Airtel, and neither can the user.

> Airtel is implementing this block by looking at the Host: headers of ALL HTTP requests going out of CF, and since everyone in India will hit CF, they are now looking at the headers of all users in India, across ISPs.

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#26
post #7

All I'm hearing is that Cloudflare allows their customers to configure client facing TLS without enforcing it upstream over the internet, providing a false sense of security. Thanks Cloudflare! ... and I'm pretty sure that their response will be "We are just a proxy, we are not responsible for anything".

We give all our customers free certificates for their origin servers. http://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-ca-encryption-origin/

Why provide the option to use unencrypted origin connections then? If a customer wants SSL, make them do it right.

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#27
I've never understood CloudFlare's position on this issue/feature. They generally do a great job at improving, caring and fighting for internet security, yet continue to offer a product (Flexible SSL) that they know is insecure:

This option is not recommended if you have any sensitive information on your website. It should only be used as a last resort if you are not able to setup SSL on your own web server, but it is less secure than any other option (even “Off”) [1]

So by CF's own admission this is less secure than having SSL disabled. That's of course technically incorrect assuming the visitor is aware that SSL is terminated at CloudFlare, and insecure from there to the origin server. If the visitor is aware of this distinction (and know what it means, which includes knowing where the CF edge and origins are located) then it does add some security (the coffeeshop's Wi-Fi etc).

However it's probably fair to assume that most visitors of CloudFlare-protected sites are not aware of this distinction. They're probably just aware that Green Lock + HTTPS = secure. So instead this product primarily gives a visitor a false sense of security, which in my opinion is much worse and potentially dangerous. I guess CloudFlare agrees with that; why else would they say it's less secure than no SSL?

In the end, CloudFlare should clarify why they continue to offer a seemingly secure encryption product that they themselves consider less secure than no encryption. They say it should only be used "as a last resort", but when is choosing "Flexible SSL" really the last resort? I mean, you can just disable SSL entirely or do it properly (and even get a free certificate from CF), both of which are more secure.

I don't know, but here's an idea: It might be a good product for CloudFlare customers, such as TBP, who don't care enough to actually secure their visitors' traffic, but still want to give the appearance thereof. Which is exactly what the more prominent product page lists as the advantages of "Flexible SSL"[2]:

- You do not need an SSL certificate on your server.

- Visitors will see the SSL lock icon in their browser.

I might be missing something and I'd honestly appreciate if someone can shed some light on this. I respect CloudFlare a lot and appreciate their efforts to improve internet security. It's just difficult to maintain a brand as a company on the forefront of the internet security battle, while also enabling customers to somewhat deceitfully give the appearance of security at the expense of their visitors' security and safety. It seems pretty clear that CF needs to discontinue this product before it hurt their brand as well as unassuming visitors.

[1] https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200170416-W...

[2] https://www.cloudflare.com/ssl/

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#28
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Airtel blocks the http traffic to piratebay No, Airtel substitutes Piratebay's response to CloudFlare.

And this is why we want HTTPS everywhere. Yes. It would probably mean that the site is completely not reachable, but I prefer that to an altered response.

Unless I'm mistaken, the site could be made reachable if only TPB would enable SSL between Cloudflare and their origin.

Currently, Airtel is blocking based on the Host header. If they can't see the Host header, they'd have to instead know TPB's origin IP, which they wouldn't.

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#29
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We give all our customers free certificates for their origin servers. http://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-ca-encryption-origin/

Why provide the option to use unencrypted origin connections then? If a customer wants SSL, make them do it right.

Presumably because some people have backends that don't support SSL (e.g. anything hosted on S3) and CloudFlare thought "eh, some encryption is better than nothing, and they're going to let us MITM their encrypted connection anyway so they're obviously not a bank or something really important"

Re: Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India

#30
post #8

In the article,testing the host header with different IP is done over http and not https.so i so it does not prove that Airtel is sniffing https traffic,isn't it ? >curl -H "Host: thepiratebay.org" http://192.30.253.112/ May be I missed something. Technically it is possible block the traffic by looking at SNI[1] or simply block the ipaddress if it belongs to the blocked site.I always thought that every ISPs had to fo…

I wonder if there's any proposals/extensions for moving SNI into the encrypted part of the communication. The initial certificate would have to be keyed to the IP address of the server, or maybe something from DNS, and probably there are other complications too, but it'd at least reduce the amount of plaintext information transmitted with each connection.
Post reply on HN