Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#171

Post by ska »

lexman0 wrote: 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…

The authors last point is strong though, if there is an industry body in an area that is affected by these standards, that body should have been involved in the standard process since (before the) beginning. Showing up late and saying "hey, that won't work for us" is pretty weak.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#172

Post by merb »

akvadrako wrote: post #113
ghshephard wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you control the server, you can decrypt any time you want, because obviously if you were able to decrypt at one time, you can do so later.

That's the whole point of forward secrecy. For the one session you use a temporary key which can't be recovered later. You can only decrypt the stream if you store that key.

well your proxy can just store everything in Plain Text? I mean if you really need to decrypt it later you already saved it somewhere, however you can just store the plain text since your proxy already has that?

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#173

Post by aseipp »

phkamp wrote: post #123

This is exactly the clash between governments (here financial regulation) and cyberlibertarians I wrote about earlier this year: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2904894 What have we gained in security, if TLS1.3 is basically illegal to use for banks ? Who wins if browsers refuses to connect to web-banking which operates inside the boundaries of the law ?

But they're claiming it will require overhauling their infrastructure and cost money to do -- not that it's impossible to support, or that TLS 1.3 will "be illegal" if their demands are not met (this is just nonsense and 100% FUD on part of your comment, honestly -- and I say that as someone who thinks highly of your work). Furthermore there's no clear evidence TLS 1.2 will be deprecated anytime soon, so these people have years to sort out the details with their vendors to have replacements in-flight. Banks have money and connections. They'll survive this and evolve.

In any case, they could have made their concerns available earlier to the standards body. Like, over two and a half years ago (RSA key exchange was removed in early 2014). This is hardly the fault of "cyberlibertarians" or whatever, this is just these people being out of touch. The alternative here would be that these guys get to butt into the standardization process and demand changes at the very last moment, after years of work, with no negative impacts or consequences for them -- for what is ultimately a small portion of the overall internet.

Why would we want that? It completely undermines the authority of the IETF and the entire point of a standards process if "really important" people can just completely railroad it and demand changes on a whim with no consequences to themselves. Frankly, completely ignoring the actual content of the request, this alone is pretty bad behavior on their part.

Why we should worsen the security of billions of people, and introduce complexity into a vital internet protocol, so that those dorks can have slightly higher profit margins -- I dunno. Designing a security protocol is hard enough. If they didn't want to pay attention to the conversation, and now want to cry their pockets will take a hit -- well, maybe they'll learn and be more proactive next time and save themselves some cash.

> Who wins if browsers refuses to connect to web-banking which operates inside the boundaries of the law ?

Nobody ever said TLS 1.3 would be illegal for banks, that browsers are going to immediately drop TLS 1.2 after this (both of these two being a requirement for your prediction to be true -- lol, and also completely asinine) making it refuse to connect to a "law abiding bank", or that moving to TLS 1.3 would be literally impossible for them forever and can't be solved.

This is just complete FUD dude, c'mon. Unless you're actually interested in the answers to completely nonsense hypotheticals made up out of thin air, I guess...

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#174

Post by thwarted »

raesene6 wrote: post #120
userbinator wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they just store traffic and can decrypt it afterwards with the private key that they likely already protect with very high security, I think that's better than having to log traffic and all the session keys which need to be protected in the same manner as the private key... I agree that his message was a rational argument. The dismissive response was disappointing, however. Ultimately, the conflict of interest her…

I would agree that not everyone wants the same set of security problems and that this causes the conflict evident in the mailing thread, not so sure I'm completely with the banks on this one though. Standards bodies are trying to improve security for a very wide range of people and the obvious target with this is that they're trying to mitigate the risk that government agencies and others can passively read encrypted…

I view this as the banks want to get the experts who are working on the standard to sign-off on their requirements, so they can continue to say they are secure purely because they do what the standards say, and ignoring if the standard is actually increasing security or not.

There are very good reasons why you want to latch your regulations to a common, Internet standards body, especially when it comes to security (open, visible, accessible discussion is the primary reason, for me). But in that case, you don't also get to dictate that the goals of the wider Internet need to align with your industry's (short-term) business objectives, especially if they run counter to the goals of the Internet standards bodies. The Internet will continue on and make standards that are appropriate for itself, no matter what the banks do in this regard. Internet standards bodies are not in the business of securing internal bank networks, but if securing internal bank networks is important to banks, they are welcome to use Internet standards in order to do so.

The banks can just as well go back to having regulations on internal communications like they had before SSL and TLS existed if keeping up with Internet standards is too expensive financially or operationally. Or their regulations can say that TLS1.2 is an acceptable deployment for their internal networks. This, too, has costs, as the rest of the Internet deprecates old, insecure stuff. And one of those costs is that you cease being able to piggybank on the efforts of the wider Internet. That cost, over the long term, needs to be assessed by the banking industry too.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#175

Post by sctb »

joe563323 wrote: post #110
lexman0 wrote: 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…

Then the regulations should be changed, you stupid.

Personal attacks are not OK on Hacker News. Please comment civilly and substantively or not at all.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#176

Post by wodencafe »

kabdib wrote: post #147
wodencafe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put the cyber-snooping aspect aside for a minute. Where have the banks been? Why didn't this Andrew Kennedy guy (or any other banks) chime in when this was fresh? Why did this only become relevant to them at the last minute? Forgive me, but I have no sympathy for these institutions. If they really cared about Security, they would have dealt with this nonsense a long time ago. You want to excuse the banks because they…

No surprise, given the quality of the edge software of most banking systems. With few exceptions, they are howlingly bad. I cannot imagine what the insides of them are like.

It's turtles all the way down.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#177

Post by brians »

lexman0 wrote: 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…

a) He's a troll. Look at his patterns around specific requests: he asks for something (an operator, an example), and when one's shown that doesn't count. His messages aren't signed with his name. It's textbook delay-and-befuddlement, right out of that old OSS field manual.

b) Why should I, as a bank account holder, value a bank that uses TLS 1.2 with decryption devices (after the release of TLS 1.3) more highly than one that uses no encryption at all?

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#178

Post by riskable »

wodencafe wrote: post #131
lexman0 wrote: 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…

Put the cyber-snooping aspect aside for a minute. Where have the banks been? Why didn't this Andrew Kennedy guy (or any other banks) chime in when this was fresh? Why did this only become relevant to them at the last minute? Forgive me, but I have no sympathy for these institutions. If they really cared about Security, they would have dealt with this nonsense a long time ago. You want to excuse the banks because they…

Do not assume that the people who are responsible for monitoring such things (at the big banks) have only their employer's purse in mind.

One cannot rule out...

Someone's going to get vastly improved security whether they want it or not!

Protocols like TLS protect bank customers from fraud. It is the bank's duty first and foremost to protect their every day customers. If Wall Street always comes first banking's primary product will be despair.

Re: Industry Concerns about TLS 1.3

#179

Post by ChoHag »

Tharkun wrote: post #169
stephen_g wrote: post #135

I think this request is pretty unreasonable, and anything that stops the ability to passively snooping on TLS is a great thing. I think there could be a security gain though in adding support for a better way to actively MITM TLS traffic though - in having a proper mechanism for filtering proxy firewalls. For some applications (say, school networks) it is OK to monitor and filter traffic, but the way it is done now i…

Why do you think it's ok to spy on your users on a school network?

The students didn't buy the computers. I did.

Edit: And before anyone starts with the "you shouldn't spy on your users" bullshit: Bollocks. If you want that, welcome to laa laa fantasy land where we all breathe sand.

You will use computers or networks in which the operator is recording everything you do. You can either work within that assumption, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend.

And no, I don't use my employer's[+] computer for anything personally-sensitive and I don't install their shite on mine in order to access their network and when I do use their computer I expect they will watch everything I do even if they don't because I'm using their equipment. I do my real work on my own computer or I don't do my work. The employer is well within its rights to suck on it.

[+] There is no reason why the same should not apply to schools, libraries or any other institution in which people are permitted to use items owned or services controlled by others.

Post reply on HN