this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
221 points (99.1% liked)

Privacy

31173 readers
395 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] plague_sapiens@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think that criminals will try and get those certs. Do big time damage to the EU and hopefully stop them pushing such bullshit...

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 32 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Some hacking is ethical...

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 26 points 10 months ago

In fact most hacking is ethical. The public just doesn't hear about it.

[–] plague_sapiens@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Someone was prosecuted for hacking bc they hit F12. Lmao, never gonna get over that.

[–] plague_sapiens@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah, looks like he was never prosecuted after all, but the whole situation was still a horrible mess.

[–] plague_sapiens@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Thats an older source, saw some newer on reddit last week. Try to find it. But nothing happened to our hacking hero xD

"newer": https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/missouri-governor-rebuffed-journalist-wont-be-prosecuted-for-viewing-html/

[–] PreviouslyAmused@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Until they pass a law making it super duper no-no bad for anyone but the government to use this power.

… cause that’s how the internets works, it’s okay when the government does it, and they are able to control everything on the internet through regulations. Didn’t you know that?

[–] plague_sapiens@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Like regulations ever helped on the internet.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)
[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Tbf the politicians usually either hire Halliburton or have one of the technically literate agencies handle this kind of stuff.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is from same entity aspiring to hold big tech responsible?

[–] spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

It's like every 2 days there is a catastrophic law for privacy introduced in the EU. Last time with E2EE now with HTTPS. It seems that the EU would agree to stop bit tech from spying but they don't want anyone to hide from them.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Centralized CAs were and are a mistake. HTTPs should work more like ssh-keys where the first time you connect to a website it's untrusted, but once you have validated it the website you want, it never bothers you again unless the private key changes. Private key rotations can be posted on public forums, or emailed, or any number of other ways and users that don't care can ignore the warnings like they do anyway, while users who DO care, can perform their own validation through other channels.

The most important aspect is that there is no "authority" that can be corrupted, except for the service you are connecting to.

[–] CrinterScaked@sh.itjust.works 43 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There is no way a user can know the website is real the first time it's visited, without it presenting a verifiable certificate. It would be disastrous to trust the site after the first time you connected. Users shouldn't need to care about security to get the benefits of it. It should just be seamless.

There are proposals out there to do away with the CAs (Decentralized PKI), but they require adoption by Web clients. Meanwhile, the Web clients (chrome) are often owned by the same companies that own the Certificate Authorities, so there's no real incentive for them to build and adopt technology that would kill their $100+ million CA industry.

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, except you aren’t supposed to TOFU.

Literally everybody does SSH wrong. The point of host keys is to exchange them out-of-band so you know you have the right host on the first connection.

And guess what certificates are.

Also keep in mind that although MS and Apple both publish trusted root lists, Mozilla is also one of, if not the, biggest player. They maintain the list of what ultimately gets distributed as ca-certificates in pretty much every Linux distro. It’s also the source of the Python certifi trusted root bundle, that required by requests, and probably makes its way into every API script/bot/tool using Python (which is probably most of them).

And there’s literally nothing stopping you from curating your own bundle or asking people to install your cert. And that takes care of the issue of TOFU. The idea being that somebody that accepts your certificate trusts you to verify that any entity using a certificate you attach your name to was properly vetted by you or your agents.

You are also welcome to submit your CA to Mozilla for consideration on including it on their master list. They are very transparent about the process.

Hell, there’s also nothing stopping you from rolling a CA and using certificates for host and client verification on SSH. Thats actually preferable at-scale.

A lot of major companies also use their own internal CA and bundle their own trusted root into their app or hardware (Sony does this with PlayStation, Amazon does this a lot of AWS Apps like workspaces, etc)

In fact, what you are essentially suggesting is functionally the exact same thibg as self-signed certificates. And there’s absolutely (technically) nothing wrong with them. They are perfectly fine, and probably preferable for certain applications (like machine-to-machine communication or a closed environment) because they expire much longer than the 1yr max you can get from most public CAs. But you still aren’t supposed to TOFU them. That smacks right in the face of a zero-trust philosophy.

The whole point of certificates is to make up for the issue of TOFU by you instead agreeing that you trust whoever maintains your root store, which is ultimately going to be either your OS or App developer. If you trust them to maintain your OS or essential app, then you should also trust them to maintain a list of companies they trust to properly vet their clientele.

And that whole process is probably the number one most perfect example of properly working, applied, capitalism. The top-level CAs are literally selling honesty. Fucking that up has huge business ramifications.

Not to mention, if you don’t trust Bob’s House of Certificate's, there’s no reason you can’t entrust it from your system. And if you trust Jimbo’s Certificate Authority, you are welcome to tell your system to accept certificates they issue.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, except you aren’t supposed to TOFU.

A better solution would be to have both at the same time.
Browser says: x number of CAs say that this site is authentic (click here for a list). Do you trust this site? Certificate fingerprint: ... Certificate randomart: ...

And then there would be options to trust it once, trust it temporarily, trust it and save the cert. The first 2 could also block JS if wanted.

I can see this would annoy the mainstream users, so probably this should be opt-in, asked at browser installation or something like that.

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

But you only really need one to say it’s authentic. There are levels of validation that require different levels of effort. Domain Validation (DV) is the most simple and requires that you prove you own the domain, which means making a special domain record for them to validate (usually a long string that they provide over their HTTPS site), or by sending an email to the registered domain owner from their WHOIS record. Organization Validation (OV) and extended verification (EV) are the higher tiers, and usually require proof of business ownership and an in-person interview, respectively.

Now, if you want to know if the site was compromised or malicious, that’s a different problem entirely. Certificates do not and cannot serve that function, and it’s wrong to place that role on CAs. That is a security and threat mitigation problem and is better solved by client-based applications, web filtering services, and next-gen firewalls, that use their own reputation databases for that.

A CA is not expected to prevent me from hosting rootkits. Doesn’t matter if my domain is rootkits-are.us or totallylegitandsafe.net. It’s their job to make sure I own those domains. Nothing more. For a DV cert at least.

Public key cryptography, and certificates in particular, are an amazing system. They don’t need to be scrapped because there’s a ton of misunderstanding as to its role and responsibilities.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

The plan was to have criminals use the storefront — an online end-to-end encryption service called Tutanota — to allow authorities to collect intelligence about them.

Oh, yes, sorry, I had a brainfart. Certs don't usually (or at all?) have more than one root cert.

A CA is not expected to prevent me from hosting rootkits. Doesn’t matter if my domain is rootkits-are.us or totallylegitandsafe.net. It’s their job to make sure I own those domains. Nothing more. For a DV cert at least.

I thought that was the goal. Not to make sure that the website is secure, but that the connection is secure, and that I've connected to the server that I expected.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't really care if a site is who they say they are, I'm the one connecting to the site, if the site does what I expect, they are serving their purpose. The only thing I use SSH/HTTPS for is to make sure that whatever communication between me and the site can't be snooped. A CA allows a third party to snoop that traffic, and I have no indication they are doing it.

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You are missing half the purpose of PKI. Identity is equally, if not more, as important as encryption.

Who gives a shit if your password is encrypted if somebody intercepts DNS and sends yourbank.com and makes it go to their own server that’s hosting a carbon-copy of the homepage to collect passwords?

And DNS isn’t the only attack vector for this. It can be done at the IP level by attacks that spoof BGP. It can be done by sticking a single-board computer in a trashcan at a subway stop. Have it broadcast a ton of well-known SSIDs and a ton of phones in the area will auto connect to it and can intercept traffic. Hell, if not for trusted CAs, it’d be very easy to just MITM all the HTTPS traffic anyway.

In reality, you would tofu the first website you went to and not know if it got intercepted or if they just rotated keys (which is also a common security practice and is handled by renewing certificates and part of the reason why publicly-issued CAs are trending down the life of certificates and it’s not a big deal for admins because of easy automation technology. HSTS and cert pinning is more of a PITA but really barely any effort when you consider the benefits of those).

Now, what certificates don’t protect, nor claim to protect, is typosquatting. If you instead go to yorbank.com, that’s on you, and protecting you from a malicious site that happened to buy it is the job for host-based security, web filters, and NGFWs.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The EU is also run by legacy plutocratic elites desperate to retain their power.

The rich over there is just as tasty.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

Forget the guillotine, we need to roast them live and eat the rich

/s but is it?

[–] elias_griffin@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Here's how to massively increase your self confidence, character, and be virtually impervious to depression. Privacy is an essential Human need. We feel insecure with no privacy as it should.

Refuse to give any data about your digital or physical self unless when absolutely, undoubtedly, justifiably neccessary, especially to anyone that allows third parties to snoop you, that could be anyone/anything! Keep telling yourself, not only will I not let Big-Tech/Gov breach my privacy and collect data about me and monetize me for free, I'm not for sale at any price.

I am not for sale at any price.

I'M NOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE. It will be hard for me to do, much of my behavior will need to be changed, but I am worth it.

[–] privacybro@lemmy.ninja 3 points 10 months ago

Great words

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 months ago

The EU is starting to look worse than the US. Sure the NSA is scary but at least they work under cover

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 4 points 10 months ago

As I understand the article says the article was finalized on November 8, 2 days ago. Do we know what was the outcome?

[–] Starshader@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

It may be a stupid question but... what will prevent us from downloading a US browser ?

[–] random65837@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Funny all the excuses made by the sheep on how great the EU govt is for all their internet greatness when theyve proven at every front their even worse than the US. Which is an accomplishment.

nato article?