On: Why aren’t we using SSH for everything?

[deckar01]

You said that you are afraid of loosing users after a leak, which implies if you don't have to, you won't tell your users about the incident.

[jvehent → deckar01]

No. I said that changing the key, which must happen, will trigger a warning that will scare users away. Which is (partly) why no one uses SSH with non technical populations.

[eximius → deckar01]

No, its that the fix is client side and painful. They can tell their users to fix it and they would rather leave than do it.

[deckar01 → eximius]

I thought users would be prompted to accept a new fingerprint. Am I missing something?

[billyhoffman → deckar01]

If by "prompted" you mean:

@ WARNING: REMOTE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED! @ IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY! Someone could be eavesdropping on you right now!

Then, yes, users will be prompted in the scariest possible language.

Compare this with HTTPS/browsers, which care not a lick if a certificate/fingerprint is different, provided that the certificate is valid and the chain is trusted.

[ibotty → billyhoffman]

Which --coincidentally-- is exactly the problem with it.