zlacker

>>codero+(OP)
Note that this happens even when using a BlueCoat proxy in non-MITM mode. BlueCoat tries to "analyze" TLS connections, and rejects anything it doesn't understand. This exact issue occurred with TLS 1.2 back when BlueCoat only understood 1.1/1.0.

In this case, it doesn't sound like they're reverting it because of overall breakage, but rather because it breaks the tool that would otherwise be used to control TLS 1.3 trials and other configuration. Firefox had a similar issue, where they temporarily used more conservative settings for their updater than for the browser itself, to ensure that people could always obtain updates that might improve the situation.

>>JoshTr+w
Ridiculously conservative middleboxes are why we can't have nice things and why we need to encrypt all new protocols, security properties aside.

>>quotem+d1
Actually, no, that would just make everything more difficult. Browsers need to start coming to terms with the fact that they do not get do dictate how www networking operates for every organization around the world.

There are hundreds of thousands of organizations that need inspection and caching and proxying of internal www traffic. That all protocols should disallow or frustrate this disregards real needs of users and organizations.

Further still, if protocols can't be designed to be implemented easily or to allow for implementation bugs or lack of features, it's a crap protocol or application. Middleware will always be necessary, and encryption really shouldn't change the requirements of how middleware needs to work with a protocol.

>>peterw+JN
Then those organizations are free to not use encryption-friendly protocols for internal resources. Furthermore, those companies are free to fork Chromium or Firefox and distribute their own browser that renders these protocols toothless.

IOW, it's completely fair to argue that users might not have a universal right to encryption, but it's just as legitimate to argue that browser vendors have no obligation to enable the trivial circumvention of encryption. If the software doesn't work for your needs, then stop using the software.

>>kibwen+f01
No they aren't, encryption is still required for internal transactions as well as working with external partners. And fork a browser? Are you nuts?

Nobody made that argument. But browser makers have an obligation to keep the world wide web usable. If it's not usable, say goodbye to dot com companies selling services to businesses, which aside from advertising revenue (and the hopes and dreams of venture capitalists) is the only way they survive.

The only reasonable alternative if you start locking out legitimate business use cases of traffic inspection is to abandon the web and start making proprietary native applications and protocols like back in the old days. This is bad for users and bad for business.

It's not like it's even hard to support these use cases while maintaining user security! Browsers just totally suck at interfacing with a dynamic user role. Better UX and a more flexible protocol would solve this, but nobody wants to make browsers easier to use (more the opposite)