From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9BD4264A9
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Thu, 16 May 2024 03:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Wed May 15 21:39:56 -0400 2024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706;
	t=1715823558;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=talxDZb5IBnj69siQ9eXOb8ReVId/QZHjao32WT3jkk=;
	b=TO8WiSImfRC5ioVEhlYR24CATv9FuIYtdom5jQgunP7LNF5RbBQsrD4N8+BKOBZe8etqDo
	TZH70nRxfRqvZdHpiJS/bExpaPAAl45NeYYEzVKGpmLL3nyaM9UglkITY6D5RiXv+3012b
	9fiAXGZG+WXf+sYcSZgUjRko3DtrRXo=
Received: from localhost (wopr.sciops.net [local])
	by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 802facee
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Wed, 15 May 2024 18:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 18:39:18 -0700
From: Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net>
To: 9front@9front.org
Message-ID: <ZkVjxrdv-sI_t5RR@wopr>
Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org
References: <4C1B6B746BF77B2F88319BBFCBFEB08C@driusan.net>
 <ZkVf-SR5UY4LSuYI@alice>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZkVf-SR5UY4LSuYI@alice>
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: content-addressed private dependency browser metadata-oriented layer 
Subject: Re: [9front] Re: "Insecure" icon in gmail
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 06:23:05PM -0700, Anthony Martin wrote:
> 
> Not currently. Note that webfs, ftpfs, aux/wpa, dns over tls, and
> probably others do not bother checking the validity of a server's
> certificate. This is not ideal. No one has done the work. Alas.
> 

I'm not sure how much benefit there is to cert validation, since the
current Browser/CA forum is just "whatever Google wants" and there's
only meaningful enforcement against bad CAs about once per decade.  TOFU
is as good as anything else, since there's nobody trustworthy to
whom to outsource any of this.

As should have been obvious to the internet forefathers, conflating
integrity, authorization, and authentication turns out to be a bad idea.
Consider TLS to be opportunistic line encryption; if you want to secure
the contents of the messages, sign or encrypt them, and get your public
keys to the recipient on some other channel.


khm