From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sun Dec 10 20:55:04 2017 Return-Path: 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 D862FE9C184 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:55:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com) Received: from shell1.rawbw.com (shell1.rawbw.com [198.144.192.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEFE360A for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:55:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com) Received: from yv.noip.me (c-24-6-186-56.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.186.56]) (authenticated bits=0) by shell1.rawbw.com (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id vBAKsxJA026569 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:55:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.rawbw.com: Host c-24-6-186-56.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.186.56] claimed to be yv.noip.me Subject: Re: http subversion URLs should be discontinued in favor of https URLs To: Eugene Grosbein , Igor Mozolevsky Cc: freebsd security , RW 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> <20171210173222.GF5901@funkthat.com> <5c810101-9092-7665-d623-275c15d4612b@rawbw.com> <19bd6d57-4fa6-24d4-6262-37e1487d7ed6@rawbw.com> <5A2D8CDF.80903@grosbein.net> <5A2D9CEF.9020404@grosbein.net> From: Yuri Message-ID: <2fde7b1e-7174-00d1-5fd0-65c385bdcdef@rawbw.com> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:54:58 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5A2D9CEF.9020404@grosbein.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:55:04 -0000 On 12/10/17 12:45, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > 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. There's no MITMing with https unless you are a state actor. There are very few state actors, they are special case. Regular hackers can't MITM https, but can MITM http. Yuri