From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Wed Dec 13 01:38:12 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 3B3D9E8C572 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:38:12 +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 280057C382 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:38:11 +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 vBD1c9qf077184 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:38:10 -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: Peter Wemm , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Cc: RW , Igor Mozolevsky References: <97f76231-dace-10c4-cab2-08e5e0d792b5@rawbw.com> <5A303453.9050705@grosbein.net> <6c9d028c-ac1c-3fc6-8ea2-7ee22c7ffbe8@rawbw.com> <3138231.uiVPfnS2VB@overcee.wemm.org> From: Yuri Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:38:08 -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: <3138231.uiVPfnS2VB@overcee.wemm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; 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: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:38:12 -0000 On 12/12/17 16:37, Peter Wemm wrote: > I think you're missing the point. It is a sad reality that SSL/TLS corporate > (and ISP) MITM exists and is enforced on a larger scale than we'd like. But > it is there, and when mandated/enforced you have to go through the MITM > appliance, or not connect at all. Private CA's generally break those > appliances - an unfortunate FreeBSD user in this situation is cut off. How is > this better? This is certainly better for users because it informs the user. Now he has a choice to use a special override key to use MITMed https anyway or refuse, vs. with http he is not informed. Yuri