Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not always the code you work on. It might be other internal services or sites.
All our internal services are HTTPS. Then if a new hack is found to weaken wireless protocols we have that extra line of protection. Security in depth. We serve strongly regulated industries and are subject to in-depth audits by clients on occasion, so perhaps my level of paranoia would be less warranted elsewhere. I'd still HTTPS everything though, even if the potential payoff is small because the required effort is…
Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
391–400 of 525 posts
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#392I do worry about the sort of monoculture with Let's Encrypt. A second and third provider that do the same thing would reduce the blast radius for potential outages. Grateful for LE, but there's a lot riding on it. Similar for Cloudflare.
I'll try to keep my tin hat stored.
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but we have like 50 different internal domains for different customers, so that would get annoying real fast ;)
Well, you have to specifically enable this feature. So don't enable it.
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#394Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#395Is HTTP (without the S) only risky if you're transmitting data, and not just browsing?
Edit: and, as others have said, the content can be modified by a man-in-the-middle attacker, which can inject fake content or malware.
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why HN won't allow me to reply to ori_b's question below you, however DoH in Firefox (and in Chrome) have clearly spelled out ways to disable it at the network level for those folks who are network operators and want to restrict it due to interference in filtering or split-horizon DNS. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/configuring-networks-di... Someone previously mentioned Pi-Hole. Pi-Hole provides t…
> DoH in Firefox (and in Chrome) have clearly spelled out ways to disable it at the network level for those folks who are network operators and want to restrict it due to interference in filtering or split-horizon DNS. I still don't really understand this. Yes, it solves that problem, but how is it not also defeating the entire premise? If you had a DNS server from an adversarial network operator, they could just res…
There's still some specific cases where DoH is problematic, but these are being eliminated over time as the technology matures. As an example of this, split horizon DNS in corporate environments is a good choice. Right now, the only realistic way to provide this is with Do53, so DoH must be disabled, but with Microsoft adding DoH support into the Windows 10 DNS Client, they are likely soon going to also support it on Windows DNS Server, which would enable businesses to make use of DoH internally and to simply set the endpoint by enterprise policies.
DoH is a few different things, but at it's most basic it's transport security for DNS, which is a fundamentally good idea any way you slice it. At some point in the future, plaintext DNS will effectively cease to exist and that's a /good thing/. There are several different implementations of encrypted DNS in the wild besides DoH (DoT and DNScrypt as examples), whichever you choose, any option that encrypts DNS both on your local network and across external networks improves privacy and security.
It takes a pretty long time to transition fundamental protocols like this, but a future where more things are sent across encrypted transports is a good future. Plaintext DNS is incredibly vulnerable, and it's also in an area which isn't heavily visible to most users, which is not a recipe for success.
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#397Is HTTP (without the S) only risky if you're transmitting data, and not just browsing?
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#398Web browsers have no business using DNS over HTTPS, none; nada. zip.
We've opened a can-of-worms ... for malwares to evade further network detection ... effectively with DNS-over-HTTPS.
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing about DNS over HTTPS that requires you to use one centralized provider, and unencrypted DNS has always been easier for large corporations, ISPs, and the government to sniff. I think people are just totally off-base on this. The instances of government/corporation reactions to DOH that we have seen suggest that untrustworthy organizations and governments largely oppose the change. They would not oppos…
Firefox made DoH to Cloudflare the default, right? This is not responsive to my argument that it will impact most Firefox users. Most people won't change their defaults. Defaults matter. And that goes double when you need to dink with your own DNS server to override this crap.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https#...
Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are able to run own network and have the know how to do so, typical physical Firefox users cannot. Given your knowledge you can disable or even build firefox with DoH disabled , it is a sensible default for vast majority of users who do not know what DHCP is, or control their network. It cannotis trivial configuration for people who can control and do not want the DoH service provider given by Firefox. Also many…
Why should Firefox want enable users and devices to bypass network owners configuration in this way? A company should control their network, just as a home network's owner should have control.