Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1

Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by egeozcan on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @11:54AM (#10664073)

> it's going to be difficult to enforce

I guess it's just a matter of dropping every connection that you can't MITM, no?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by Elhana on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @02:02PM (#10665035)

You don't have to. Proxy handles the request and just gives response back to you signed with national cert. If you don't install it, your browser will just start complaining about every site. At least that is how Bluecoat ProxySG[1] works at my employee.

[1] https://bto.bluecoat.com/webguides/proxysg/security_first_st...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by voltagex_ on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @05:16PM (#10666265)

Funny story, most of the machines / servers at my workplace weren't vulnerable to Heartbleed - but ProxySG was. AFAIK they built their own OS from scratch, too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by cortesoft on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @05:51PM (#10666481)

For SSL traffic, yes, but that wouldn't stop someone from using a different encryption protocol.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kazakhstan to MitM all HTTPS traffic starting Jan 1 by mil0 on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @09:13PM (#10667298)

country wide, this is a loud call for a cloud, distributed proxy provider with a better track record than the telco, to offer tor-like tunnels to at least exit the MITM zone.

[ Parent | on HN ]