Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"For encrypted networks, [the owner of the network] MITMing the encryption breaks the security."

What security, specifically. Security from who/what.

Let's say a network owned by C comprises computer A and computer B, A is connected to B and B is connected to the internet.

Computer A runs "apps" controlled by D and not trusted by C. B runs only programs trusted by C.

Both A and B, i.e., the programs runing on them, are each capable of encrypting traffic.

Let's say the approach C takes on C's network is to let B handle encryption. Not A.

The apps running on Computer A want to encrypt traffic but, in C's opinion, that "security" is for the benefit of D not C.

Computer B encrypts all traffic bound for the internet and decrypts all traffic received from the internet. C does not need D's apps to perform encryption.

It is C's network. Is there a reason C should not control encryption on C's own network.

Is there a reason D should be able to run its "apps" on C's network and encrypt traffic that D cannot inspect.

Would D allow C to run programs on D's network that encrypt traffic so that D cannot inspect it. (Reciprocity.)

One could imagine the encryption by D's apps running on Computer A is security against D, the owner of the network.

Any other "security" provided by D's apps encrypting traffic on A is already provided by B.

(Given the existence of B, encryption by A is unnecessary and redundant.)




Does Facebook "break the security"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39860486

Why does it need this "network visibility"




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: