zlacker

>Is your gripe that you don't like TLS?

I'm flabberghasted that that's what you took away from my comments. I thought I was very clear. My issue is the lack of HTTP support in HTTP/3 implementations shipped by the mega-corps (CA HTTPS only). CA TLS is definitely the least worst solution we have and I am not against it. I am saying major browsers' HTTP/3 implementations lack of bare HTTP support in HTTP/3, combined with short TLS cert lifetimes these days, is effectively attestation and that's bad. "Basically there is no HTTP/3 without a TLS certificate." is bad.

It could be slightly mitigated by the mega-corp implementations of HTTP/3 they ship accepting non-CA root based self-signed certs with a scaremongering click-through. But that's also no longer an option. If no company running a CA will give you a cert you'll simply be unvisitable (on HTTP/3). It makes the web something only for commercially approved sites.

>>superk+(OP)
> If no company running a CA will give you a cert you'll simply be unvisitable (on HTTP/3).

This isn't technically correct. I believe on the security warning page you can type "thisisunsafe" (just blindly do it) and it'll let you through.

At the very least this works for bypassing HSTS.

>>superk+(OP)
It’s the opposite of the attestation scheme under discussion, because it requires the server to satisfy attestation, while the client can be whoever. Whereas the Apple and Google schemes require the client to satisfy attestation.

I agree with you on the necessity of maintaining support for bare HTTP in the Web ecosystem. But I think you’re not likely to get as much support on this, simply because far fewer people run servers than clients.

I kind of doubt that clients will ever connect exclusively via HTTP/3. I think browsers keep bare HTTP support. Maybe at some point it may be hidden behind a client config flag.

>>superk+(OP)
Security measures like Cloudflare anti-DDOS reverse proxy rely precisely on widespread TLS, can deny access to any client not performing sanctioned TLS handshake (like curl, scrapers, or even old browsers which by chance can do TLS 1.2).

https://github.com/lwthiker/curl-impersonate

>>superk+(OP)
So the gripe is TLS then, because that cert is less about attestation and more not wanting Verizon et al. to inject ads or snoop your data between customer and server.

Attestation is at best a transient side effect of proving your ownership/control of a domain name...

There's perhaps better ways for you to articulate this point I think you are trying to make of "closed club" of Certificate Authorities.

That said a basic google search demolishes that point with there being alternatives to LE.

Also bemoaning the 90 day period seems really weird.