buh@lemmy.world to Firefox@lemmy.ml · 9 months agoSay (an encrypted) hello to a more private internet.blog.mozilla.orgexternal-linkmessage-square63fedilinkarrow-up1641arrow-down17cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up1634arrow-down1external-linkSay (an encrypted) hello to a more private internet.blog.mozilla.orgbuh@lemmy.world to Firefox@lemmy.ml · 9 months agomessage-square63fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
minus-squarepazukaza@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agoWouldn’t it be better if reverse proxies simply had a “default key” meant to encrypt the SNI after an unencrypted “hello” is received? Including DNS in this seems weird.
minus-squarep1mrx@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 months agoWhat would stop a MITM attacker from replacing the key? The server can’t sign the key if it doesn’t know which domain the client is trusting.
Wouldn’t it be better if reverse proxies simply had a “default key” meant to encrypt the SNI after an unencrypted “hello” is received?
Including DNS in this seems weird.
What would stop a MITM attacker from replacing the key? The server can’t sign the key if it doesn’t know which domain the client is trusting.