Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> This is why your bank doesn't let you make withdrawals from your account on port 80.

It doesn't matter that my bank doesn't allow withdrawals on port 80 as long as a MitM allows that, and you can't guard against that unless you train users to expect CA-signed SSL sites for things like that.

> You need to keep re-reading [...]

I've already read that and replied to it at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1609818

> The HTTP connection isn't lying to you about how secure it is.

A non-CA HTTPS connection isn't lying to me, it's purely a matter of implementation how you treat that sort of thing. You seem to think that certification and encryption are inseparable, they aren't.

You can have SSL encryption presuming that you're talking to a known-good party, while also having the ability to initiate connections to CA-signed parties.

> [...] There is collateral damage.

Yes, but there's no need for it. Browers can decide how they present SSL, if they consistently present a big "You're secure" banner when talking to CA+SSL sites and users get used to that when transferring money they'll spot that something's up when it's missing.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: