If it involves patching and recompiling the browser it wouldn't be that trivial for your average sysadmin. Besides I don't see why the admin would be hostile to the users being aware that they're being monitored. As you point out companies generally disclose that anyway.
> Besides I don't see why the admin would be hostile to the users being aware that they're being monitored.
Agreed. We could argue all day about companies who think they need to intercept traffic, but why would anyone who believed they had a legitimate reason to do so want to do so silently without any notification?
A persistent infobar near the address bar, for instance, would work nicely. And anyone working in a hostile environment with such monitoring imposed on them (a bank, for instance) would then have a much clearer warning that they shouldn't use their work device for anything they want to keep private.
No, sysadmins don't patch browsers. Endpoint security products do. Patching browsers to implement TLS interception is table stakes for security products. Local pin enforcement would in fact result in million more surreptitious browser patches.
The warning fatigue problem is still there - and we're talking about a warning for 4-10% of all connections according to the study. Plus, as you pointed out, this would only help against the average sysadmin; if we assume an advanced sysadmin convinced to not disclose their snooping or an actual attacker, replacing the browser binary would not be a huge obstacle. In that sense, it might even add a false sense of security. It's a bit like the state of certificate revocation - it works most of the time, just not when you actually need it.
This figure of 4-10% of connections is meaningless here, either you're intercepted or you're not. The warning would only matter for websites that bother to implement certificate pinning.
I don't really know how widespread key pinning is but if it's reserved to the more sensitive websites (banking, e-commerce etc...) it might make sense to at least issue a warning.
> This figure of 4-10% of connections is meaningless here, either you're intercepted or you're not. The warning would only matter for websites that bother to implement certificate pinning.
Most Google properties use key pinning in some form (though AFAIK through static pins rather than HTTP headers). I would suspect that most users in that group would see such a warning at least daily.
> I don't really know how widespread key pinning is [...]
"Visitors may be presented with a warning if they're behind a middlebox and you deploy HPKP" would probably be a good way to slow down HPKP deployment even further.
Well, sysadmins have a way simpler solution: just tell their users to use a different browser. This would have to be coordinated between browsers to have any effect at all.
If it involves patching and recompiling the browser it wouldn't be that trivial for your average sysadmin. Besides I don't see why the admin would be hostile to the users being aware that they're being monitored. As you point out companies generally disclose that anyway.