If you're using your company's network, then they have every right to monitor all of the activity on it. They're trying to protect trade secrets, future plans, customer data, employee records, etc. from attackers who would use that information to do harm to the company, its customers, and its employees. If you don't want your employer to know what you're doing, then don't use the company computer or company network to do it. And while you may think that you're too tech savvy to fall prey to malware 1) not everyone at your company is, and 2) no amount of savvy will protect you from all malware, especially ones that gain a foothold through an unpatched exploit. And there's also that whole other can of worms: malicious employees.
Now, because engineers are so bad at saying 'no' to the people who want SSL MITM, it's apparently become a regulatory requirement. SSL MITM might let you passively surveil your employees' Facebook Messenger conversations, but it still doesn't protect you against a malicious employee who is tech-savvy (or malware written by people who have SSL MITM proxies in mind.) They could just put the information they want to smuggle out of the network into an encrypted .zip. They could even do something creative like using steganography to hide it in family photos that they upload to Facebook. The only real solution to this is to lock down the devices that people access the network on, not the network itself.
This isn't true. The TLS protocol is not a philosophy; it does not have an opinion on who you should trust as a root certificate authority. If you trust a particular root, it is wholly within the design of TLS to allow connections that are monitored by whoever controls that root authority. Who is trusted is up to you.
>They may or may not mention that if they do it wrong it will degrade the security of everything on the network.
Right, that's why you don't do it wrong. This same argument applies for any monitoring technology, like cameras. An insecure camera system actually helps a would-be intruder by giving them valuable information. So if you install cameras, you'd better do it right.
As for your list of ways such a system could be circumvented, I don't understand the logic of it. So because there are ways around a security measure, you shouldn't use the security measure at all? There is no security panacea, just a wide range of imperfect measures to be deployed based on your threat model and resources. And luckily, most bad guys are pretty incompetent. But to address some examples you give, and show how not all is lost:
- A large encrypted zip file is sent out of the network. Depending on what your concerns are, that could be a red flag and warrant further analysis of that machine's/user's activity.
- Software trying to circumvent your firewall/IDS is definitely a red flag. You might even block such detected attempts by default, and just maintain a whitelist for traffic that should be allowed regardless (e.g. for approved apps that use pinned certificates for updates).
Like the sibling comment said, this goes against the wording of the TLS specification, but I also think this is looking at the issue from the wrong perspective: from the perspective of the network admin rather than the user. The user does not trust the MITM proxy's fake root. Let's say you set up a corporate network and rather than just whitelisting the external IPs you trust, you give your users the freedom to browse the internet but you pipe everything through a BlueCoat proxy. Your users will take advantage of this freedom to do things like, say, checking their bank balance. When the user connects to the banking website, they will initialize a TLS session, the purpose of which is to keep their communication with their bank confidential. The user will assume their communication is confidential because of the green padlock in their address bar and the bank will assume their communication is confidential because it is happening over TLS. TLS MITM violates these assumptions. If the bank knew that a third party could see the plaintext of the communication, they probably would not allow the connection. If I ran a high-security website, I'd probably look for clues like the X-BlueCoat-Via HTTP header and just drop the connection if I found any.
> As for your list of ways such a system could be circumvented, I don't understand the logic of it. So because there are ways around a security measure, you shouldn't use the security measure at all?
In some cases, yeah. There are a lot of security measures out there that are just implemented to tick some boxes and don't provide much practical value. If they don't provide much value, but they actively interfere with real security measures (for example, by delaying the rollout of TLS 1.3) or they're just another point of failure and additional attack surface (bad proxies can leak confidential data, cf. Cloudflare,) they should be removed. I'll admit most bad guys are incompetent, but it's dangerous to assume they all are, because that gives the competent ones a lot of power, and someone who is competent enough to know that a network uses a TLS MITM proxy will just add another layer of encryption. (Or, like some other comments are suggesting, they'll just test your physical security instead and try to take the data out on a flash drive.)