Live data from Hacker News

Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

ietf.org

51–60 of 194 posts

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#51

"...almost all of whom are running TLS internally and have significant, security-critical investments in out-of-band TLS decryption. Like many enterprises, financial institutions depend upon the ability to decrypt TLS traffic to implement data loss protection, intrusion detection and prevention, malware detection, packet capture and analysis, and DDoS mitigation. Unlike some other businesses, financial institutions a…

Only sometimes.

The argument here could be whether you, as an individual working for an employer on employer-controlled hardware, have the right to communications that cannot be viewed by the employer at their discretion on those systems.

Having that capability (undecryptable communication) on an exceptional basis (e.g. only a few sites or methods do it) might be grounds for blocking any instances of the protocol that negotiate that level at the border.

Having every secure site do it would result in not being able to passively store and only decode the communications that, say, you have occasion to go inspect later for discovery reasons, and instead would require MITMing and downgrading all connections (and storing the traffic, at best, re-encrypted with a different key).

(Note that I'm not voicing an opinion on the topic, just observing that there are legitimate reasons to desire this functionality from several perspectives, which do not necessarily imply wanting a backdoor in the protocol in the general case.)

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#52
post #18

There are a lot of keyboard warriors in this thread. This guy puts forward a rational argument for big business. Unless you have extensive experience in this area, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge "oh they are just spying on their users". The simple answer to this question is that if a way is not given for businesses to decrypt their own traffic that they generated and encrypted, they simply won't encrypt i…

> Take this example: A regulation says that all incoming traffic into a banking sector company must be scanned for potential vulnerabilities and exploits, and allows for "compensating controls". If the incoming traffic is unable to be decrypted at TLS1.3, it will simply be decrypted at the boarder of the business and routed internally unencrypted. Sorry, I don't get it. All encrypted traffic is typically decrypted by…

>All encrypted traffic is typically decrypted by the recipient.

The use-cases for inspection at the corporate firewall are often explicitly about catching cases where the recipient isn't policing itself:

- the device is compromised, exfiltrating company secrets, but has been rigged to send false reports to the central antivirus server saying it's clean.

- the device is not something it makes sense to install a host-based IDS/firewall/AV on.

- the device is assigned to a broker-dealer who is using a non-work email account to give fraudulent advice to clients off the record.

In an enterprise IT environment, "the recipient" is the company, and the company has internal controls, often required by law or regulation, that involve i.e. people who are not salesmen or traders (IT, compliance, legal, etc) knowing what information flows into and out of the sales and trading departments.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#53
While they were very late to the party, this is important for some sectors. Not the reliance on specific tech (RSA) but being able to go back and decrypt their own traffic later, with appropriate keys.

They need to routinely spy on some of their people,amd trace what happens to their money. Not sure why this is a problem. Their use-cases are different to (say) a user of Signal.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#54
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> took forever to adopt EMV in the US and other idiocies Totally agree with your comment, but I'll go a little bit on a tangent here. I am an European, all my cards have always had a chip, I have not even seen a card without a chip until I visited the United States. All this reluctance to adopt chips seems so ridiculous to me. But then I spent more time in the United States and with magnetic stripe cards, and boy do…

That has less to do with chip vs stripe, and more to do with how those terminals interface with the POS. Swiping the stripe at any point during the transaction is tantamount to handing over your card to the cashier and never looking at the bill. Here is the thing, the stripe holds nothing more than your card number in machine readable form. On the other hand the chip is doing a full on chain of trust review before gi…

> As for not liable, have fun yakking with their lawyers if you ever need to dispute a transaction...

When I dispute a transaction, I click a button in a web interface, and it's instant, I don't have to talk to anyone, certainly not lawyers.

At another bank I have to call, but when I had to call, it also was instant, no question asked.

VISA/Mastercard have very strict rules about how transaction disputes must happen and how long they can take, rules that are very much in the cardholder's benefit, rather than the banks.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#55
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> display a very shallow understanding of how secure systems should work. They still ask about mother's maiden name, prevent paste of passwords, took forever to adopt EMV in the US and other idiocies It's security by cargo-culting

> took forever to adopt EMV in the US and other idiocies Totally agree with your comment, but I'll go a little bit on a tangent here. I am an European, all my cards have always had a chip, I have not even seen a card without a chip until I visited the United States. All this reluctance to adopt chips seems so ridiculous to me. But then I spent more time in the United States and with magnetic stripe cards, and boy do…

So much worse with NFC, where I can just tap my card (or my phone) against the reader and be done.

Further, you always had to wait for the cashier to scan everything in the UK. The 'magic button' is an implementation detail and not native to the technology.

But apart from that, sure, you want an easily-cloneable passive technology because it saves you a few seconds under some circumstances.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#56
post #3

Well, that was kind of a burn. Was the argument by the bankers basically a complaint that retooling would be very expensive? and/or that employee surveillance would be more difficult? (yeah, I'm sure everyone is a fan of that!)

>I'm sure everyone is a fan of that!

Are you a fan of laws like "people who sell you financial products are not permitted to lie" and "financial institutions must make an effort to ensure that their salesmen are not lying to customers" or at least "there need to be records so we can sort it out on the lawsuit after the fact"?

That's one of the main things employee surveillance is for in financial services.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#57
post #55
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> took forever to adopt EMV in the US and other idiocies Totally agree with your comment, but I'll go a little bit on a tangent here. I am an European, all my cards have always had a chip, I have not even seen a card without a chip until I visited the United States. All this reluctance to adopt chips seems so ridiculous to me. But then I spent more time in the United States and with magnetic stripe cards, and boy do…

So much worse with NFC, where I can just tap my card (or my phone) against the reader and be done. Further, you always had to wait for the cashier to scan everything in the UK. The 'magic button' is an implementation detail and not native to the technology. But apart from that, sure, you want an easily-cloneable passive technology because it saves you a few seconds under some circumstances.

> Further, you always had to wait for the cashier to scan everything in the UK.

But not in the US. This is also just an "implementation detail". But implementation details are essential for the user experience.

> you want an easily-cloneable passive technology because it saves you a few seconds under some circumstances.

Exactly, convenience trumps everything.

At the end of the day, I don't lose any money with the less secure technology. The bank does. Why should I care?

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#58
post #6

"Like many enterprises, financial institutions depend upon the ability to decrypt TLS traffic to implement data loss protection, intrusion detection and prevention, malware detection, packet capture and analysis, and DDoS mitigation. Unlike some other businesses, financial institutions also rely upon TLS traffic decryption to implement fraud monitoring and surveillance of supervised employees." I'm at lost here. What…

[deleted]

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to do deep packet inspection when you just MITM all the traffic.

Infrastructure upgrades are required. tls1.3 will be expensive

So let the CEOs have a year of $40M bonuses instead of $50M bonuses. A small price to pay for better security for the rest of us.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#60
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> took forever to adopt EMV in the US and other idiocies Totally agree with your comment, but I'll go a little bit on a tangent here. I am an European, all my cards have always had a chip, I have not even seen a card without a chip until I visited the United States. All this reluctance to adopt chips seems so ridiculous to me. But then I spent more time in the United States and with magnetic stripe cards, and boy do…

Well, having to wear a safety belt is also an inferior experience but we do it for safety True, swiping is faster (but you have to scribble something on a paper or an e-screen where the end result usually resembles nothing like your signature) :) I can agree with the criticism there but the tradeoff doesn't bother me (too much)

> having to wear a safety belt is also an inferior experience but we do it for safety

We do it for our safety, but chip cards are for bank's safety. Consumers are not liable for fraud anyway, only the bank wins.

Let me put it another way. Americans consumers love their magstripe; they wouldn't if they lost money. At the end of the day, chip or magstripe, the consumer has the same amount of money in his bank account.

Right now the banks bear the cost of fraud. They are moving a small amount of that cost to the consumer through by annoying him with imposing a poor UI upon him. Why should the consumer accept that?

Post reply on HN