Encrypted Client Hello

Post by josephcsible » Fri, Sep 29, 2023, 11:58 PM UTC

dilyevsky wrote: post #37

galadran wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe CF and others buckled under pressure from major websites which didn't want to be used as fronts for other website's traffic. ECH fixes this because individual sites get to opt-in to using it.

You could just as easily make df opt-in. Another way is to use “fake” cloudflare-df.com sni just like they are doing with cloudflare-ech.com outer sni

Post by xg15 » Sat, Sep 30, 2023, 12:13 AM UTC

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #25

I see a lot of confusion here, probably Cloudflare should have included an explanation of how ECH works in TFA instead of referring to their other article[1]. The difference between ECH and SNI is that while SNI includes the hostname in the ClientHello (the first TLS record indicating connection initiation), ECH includes an encrypted section in the ClientHello called ClientHelloInner, and the hostname is moved inside…

Post by josephcsible » Sat, Sep 30, 2023, 12:18 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #100

josephcsible wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while ECH provides a significant privacy improvement, I personally am against its implementation. Most ISPs enforce country-specific orders to block domains using a combination of DNS packet interception and SNI inspection. The legitimacy or sanity of such laws are a separate matter - countries would want to block websites that violate their laws. That's exactly why I'm in favor of it: it makes effective censorship…

We will almost certainly block ECH at my work, as we already block DoH. I expect any sane network to do the same. The natural alternative if blocking these protocols becomes unsustainable will absolutely be to require full decryption at our security edge. And that will provide drastically more information to us than we have now and will absolutely feel invasive. The idea of uninspectable client traffic is somewhat un…

Post by 4death4 » Sat, Sep 30, 2023, 12:21 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #105

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will almost certainly block ECH at my work, as we already block DoH. I expect any sane network to do the same. The natural alternative if blocking these protocols becomes unsustainable will absolutely be to require full decryption at our security edge. And that will provide drastically more information to us than we have now and will absolutely feel invasive. The idea of uninspectable client traffic is somewhat un…

> I expect any sane network to do the same. Why? Sane networks shouldn't block anything. Even super dangerous stuff like ports 135-139 and 445 are a morally gray area. > The idea of uninspectable client traffic is somewhat unhinged, and is already heavily used by malicious actors. How is privacy unhinged? Isn't that basically the same as the argument that we need to gut the Fourth Amendment because of terrorists and…

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Sep 30, 2023, 12:24 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #105

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will almost certainly block ECH at my work, as we already block DoH. I expect any sane network to do the same. The natural alternative if blocking these protocols becomes unsustainable will absolutely be to require full decryption at our security edge. And that will provide drastically more information to us than we have now and will absolutely feel invasive. The idea of uninspectable client traffic is somewhat un…

> I expect any sane network to do the same. Why? Sane networks shouldn't block anything. Even super dangerous stuff like ports 135-139 and 445 are a morally gray area. > The idea of uninspectable client traffic is somewhat unhinged, and is already heavily used by malicious actors. How is privacy unhinged? Isn't that basically the same as the argument that we need to gut the Fourth Amendment because of terrorists and…