News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Still Why No HTTPS? by mrob on Tuesday December 17, 2019 @12:35PM (#21816080)
Most end users have no idea what HTTPS is. They've just been (incorrectly) taught that the padlock means it's secure. Disable the padlock for self-signed HTTPS, and disable the CA-signed HTTPS-only features, and it becomes strictly better than HTTP.
Re:Still Why No HTTPS? by namibj on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @06:00AM (#21823719)
Especially because there is no way to MITM a connection with perfect-forward-secrecy only if it ends up serving a self-signed certificate, because the connection first negotiates an ephemeral key with which everything, including the certificate, will be encrypted.

This means that with eSNI and at least one CA-signed cert on the IP, any attacker runs the risk of having to spoof the CA-signed certificate.

Re:Still Why No HTTPS? by zozbot234 on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @06:12AM (#21823776)
A sophisticated attacker might know that you were going to connect to a self-signed site, though. Interestingly though, private DNS (DoH, etc.) might help further shroud this fact from the attacker.

All in all, I'd say that the browser should still throw up a full-page warning because of the implications of TOFU, but it can be one where the "continue to site" option is clearly shown even to a naïve user, and not hidden behind a spoiler.

Re:Still Why No HTTPS? by namibj on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @11:24AM (#21826425)
Then maybe fall back to DANE and thus restrict this to zones signed with more than 1024bit RSA?