Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure”
by dcow on Friday February 09, 2018 @11:14PM
(#16345835)
I think we're arguing similar things. I'm not saying we only need a hard outer shell. I'm arguing that we _need_ security in depth. And that depth should include all scopes of the internet protocol, not just global. You _should_ be able to run TLS locally so that if some global thing does get in, it now has to penetrate another security/application layer too. I should be able to tell my browser to trust these certificates for global IPs and these other ones for my home site. Why not run IPSEC in you home while you're at it too so it's even harder for a remote thing to pivot.
With all due respect, over the past fifteen years of trying to secure corporate networks, we've learned the hard way that this simply isn't a realistic goal. Having a hard outer shell and a squishy center just leaves the entire network vulnerable, because it's simply not possible to isolate yourself from the badness of the outside world. As soon as you let anyone in who's ever spoken to the hostile outside world, they bring the hostile outside world in with them.
We can't keep pretending that we can keep home networks isolated from the rest of the world when many of the computers in those networks move freely between the global Internet and the private home intranet. All connected devices are part of the global Internet whether or not we want them to be, and whether or not their connections are persistent.