Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

Pseudo HTTPS Proposed

posted by Dopefish on Monday February 24 2014, @02:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the things-could-get-hairy dept.

mrbluze writes:

"A modified HTTP protocol is being proposed (the proposal is funded by AT&T) which would allow ISP's to decrypt and re-encrypt traffic as part of day to day functioning in order to save money on bandwidth through caching. The draft document states:

To distinguish between an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "https" URIs resources and an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "http" URIs resource, the draft proposes to 'register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry specific to signal the usage of HTTP2 to transport "http" URIs resources: h2clr.

The proposal is being criticized by Lauren Weinstein in that it provides a false sense of security to end users who might believe that their communications are actually secure. Can this provide an ISP with an excuse to block or throttle HTTPS traffic?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Pseudo HTTPS Proposed | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 1000 moderator points   | 73 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by dmc on Tuesday February 25 2014, @10:47PM

    by dmc (188) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @10:47PM (#7077)

    An all HTTPS environment would render transparent proxies, and thus mandatory filtering of all network traffic in places like K-12 schools, impossible. Naturally, a school could simply deny access to devices they don't own, and solve that problem.

    I think you just contradicted yourself. You went from impossible, to naturally problem solved in the space of two sentences.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by calmond on Wednesday February 26 2014, @10:02AM

    by calmond (1826) on Wednesday February 26 2014, @10:02AM (#7276)

    No, not really. I said it is impossible to do this from a centralized server environment for all devices. A compromise would be to not allow all devices, but only the ones under your administrative control. This is not a contradiction, but a compromise.