Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by JumpCrisscross on Friday February 09, 2018 @05:05PM
(#16344256)
> It's conceptually the same, but keys and locks are not globally secure. They're only locally secure
Criminals in Hong Kong can’t teleport to my door. Local security for locks is fine because the threat is always local.
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by collinmanderson on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:51PM
(#16345574)
> Criminals in Hong Kong can’t teleport to my door.
They might be able to hijack a different IoT device on the network. The more IoT devices, the greater the attack surface.
What if you have guests over and they happen to have a bad virus on their computer or their phone?
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by dcow on Friday February 09, 2018 @10:59PM
(#16345787)
That is basically my point. People need to have ways to create local enclaves so it's impossible for packets to ever make their way into your zone. And wonxe you do that, local security is perfectly reasonable and desirable.
Also IPv6: everything gets a globally routable address. Great so why do we need anything else? Well it turns out that in order to support all the different modes of network operation and all the different topologies and use cases, the Internet Protocol needs to support non-global scopes too. Arguing you can't have e.g. link-local security is absurd and rally quite green, from a networking professionals perspective.
Oh also IPSEC is part of IPv6 not just an afterthought like it was for IPv4. This makes it even more likely we'll see trusted network scopes sooner rather than never.