From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org  Sun Dec 10 20:45:50 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FDEE9B87D
 for <freebsd-security@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:45:50 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net)
Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [78.47.246.247])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD5BE2AEF
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:45:49 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net)
Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (root@eg.sd.rdtc.ru [62.231.161.221] (may be
 forged))
 by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vBAKji5a098736
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
 Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:45:45 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net)
X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net
X-Envelope-To: yuri@rawbw.com
Received: from [10.58.0.4] ([10.58.0.4])
 by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vBAKjeLp062221
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 03:45:40 +0700 (+07)
 (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net)
Subject: Re: http subversion URLs should be discontinued in favor of https URLs
To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Igor Mozolevsky <mozolevsky@gmail.com>
References: <97f76231-dace-10c4-cab2-08e5e0d792b5@rawbw.com>
 <5A2709F6.8030106@grosbein.net>
 <11532fe7-024d-ba14-0daf-b97282265ec6@rawbw.com>
 <8788fb0d-4ee9-968a-1e33-e3bd84ffb892@heuristicsystems.com.au>
 <20171205220849.GH9701@gmail.com>
 <20171205231845.5028d01d@gumby.homeunix.com>
 <CADWvR2gVn8H5h6LYB5ddwUHYwDtiLCuYndsXhJywi7Q9vNsYvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171210173222.GF5901@funkthat.com>
 <CADWvR2iGQOtcU=FnU-fNsso2eLCCQn=swnOLoqws+33V8VzX1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c810101-9092-7665-d623-275c15d4612b@rawbw.com>
 <CADWvR2j_LLEPKnSynRRmP4LG3mypdkNitwg+7vSh=iuJ=JU09Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <fd888f6b-bf16-f029-06d3-9a9b754dc676@rawbw.com>
 <CADWvR2jnxVwXmTA9XpZhGYnCAhFVifqqx2MvYeSeHmYEybaNnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <19bd6d57-4fa6-24d4-6262-37e1487d7ed6@rawbw.com>
 <5A2D8CDF.80903@grosbein.net>
 <f374ad86-f69c-115d-60f0-5251fba4b6d6@rawbw.com>
Cc: freebsd security <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>,
 RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>
From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>
Message-ID: <5A2D9CEF.9020404@grosbein.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 03:45:35 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f374ad86-f69c-115d-60f0-5251fba4b6d6@rawbw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, LOCAL_FROM, RDNS_NONE
 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1
X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 *      [score: 0.0000]
 *  1.9 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
 *  2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on hz.grosbein.net
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:45:50 -0000

11.12.2017 3:37, Yuri wrote:

> On 12/10/17 11:37, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>> Hmm, you should not pass your traffic through the network operated
>> by lots of malicious operators in first place. No matter encrypted or not.
>> There are plenty of alternative ways.
> 
> 
> Modern encryption protocols allow you to send traffic over insecure networks and still maintain your security and privacy, so why not?

No, they don't. You get into MITM and then you have a choice: ignore and run your connection anyway
or have no connectivity at all (using this channel). Both are bad, so don't use such a channel from the beginning.