Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode

blog.mozilla.org

391–400 of 525 posts

Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode

#391
post #123

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…

public certificates? Do you use wildcards, or are you unconcerned by leaking information like servernames via CT?

Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode

#392
post #342

I 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.

Yes, LE goes boom for some reason, and there's at most 30 days to get a working replacement online before server certificates start failing.

I'll try to keep my tin hat stored.

Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode

#393
post #57

Earlier 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.

For now. These features tend to migrate from being optional to being default to being default and hard to turn off

Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode

#395

Is HTTP (without the S) only risky if you're transmitting data, and not just browsing?

An insecure connection can be trivially eavesdropped (e.g. by your network peers, router, ISP or intermediate hops). Much of the time this will include identifying information such as your IP address and browser cookies. Consider reading medical publications or other personal topics and having that logged by an unrelated third-party. TLS adds significant privacy to your browsing habits, even when not transmitting data, per se.

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

#396
post #327

Earlier 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…

Right now is a transition phase, it is absolutely intended that some other mechanism becomes available in the future which is more resilient. The canary domain provides a clear pathway though for existing Do53 configurations to prevent DoH when necessary.

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

#397

Is HTTP (without the S) only risky if you're transmitting data, and not just browsing?

No, you're still susceptible to MITM attacks. I could imagine an election info site, that said the election was November 3, being MITM'd by an adversary who changed the page to say November 4, causing many voters to miss the election by a day.

Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode

#398
This is why you block DNS selectively at your local gateway AND host a DNS resolver there as well while blocking ALL DNS except to your gateway.

Web 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

#399

Earlier 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.

Cloudflare is the default DoH provider for Firefox only in the US. NextDNS is another option in the the Firefox preferences UI and more options (such as Comcast) are coming soon in the US and internationally. You can also specify a custom DoH provider URL:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https#...

Re: Firefox 83 introduces HTTPS-Only Mode

#400

Earlier 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.

Because Firefox represents their users' interests and not network owners' interests which are often hostile e.g. inserting ads into pages.
Post reply on HN