This isn't applicable to fast.com as it simply makes requests to Netflix's CDN from the frontend. Indistinguishable from regular Netflix traffic.

Good point, although you could still do logic like only activating the throttle after the customer visits netflix.com. You can't distinguish the CDN traffic, but you can still tell what website is being viewed.

Incidentally, my speeds on fast.com are always terrible (about 1/8 of what I get elsewhere), despite the fact that I'm fairly confident it is not being throttled. That's because the speed I see is >100 Mbps, which is like 4 Netflix UHD streams. Wouldn't be much point in throttling to that speed, you'd want 10 Mbps max, and less on wireless.

then you might miss embedded clients, right?

People drastically overestimate the security properties of TLS.

The correct mental model is that it’s good enough to convince 1990’s US internet users to type their credit card into a web page. (Where the downside of a breach is that you have to dispute some charges and change your CC#.)

If you need stronger security than that, then many, many caveats start to apply.

For instance, by default, anyone that can reliably man-in-the-middle port 80 on your website can get an acme certificate for your domain from a reputable certificate authority.

Is there more on this mitm cert spoofing somewhere I can read up on? Sounds intriguing to say the least

It probably isn't too different from other access methods: 1) Get access to port 80 for > 60 seconds. Point it at your temporary VM. 2) Use any cert authority, and for verification, choose a file-specific location verification (you can choose amongst DNS records, an email to admin@domain, or a specific file location on your site with many of them) 3) On your VM, Quickly paste the file-specific location into a django GET route. 4) Run the Django site on port 80. 5) The cert authority verifies you, and emails your account the cert, the website author being none the wiser. You can now use it later to fool future visitors for a deeper attack or email-related attacks.

This doesn't work unless the attacker happens to be in between your servers and the cert authority. The ISP that's in-between your laptop and the site can't pull this trick.

Also LE actually knows this attack is possible and mitigates it by validating the challenge from multiple sources so the attacker would need to be in the middle of all the LE validators and your servers.

https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/lets-encrypt-deploys-new-...

Yes that's true, but I was just talking about the scenario of having access to port 80 of a server DNS pointed at by some domain.

You might have access through editing a proxy rewrite rule, for example.

In the attack above you use your own SSL provider for a cert (LE not involved) and you overwrite the cert in a sense that existed before. You choose a provider that just validates with a file location. It's an attack which already requires compromise.

> The cert authority verifies you, and emails your account the cert, the website author being none the wiser.

It’s not hard to monitor cert transparency logs, which will show this new cert.

If by “people,” you mean “people who rely on HTTPS for security,” then it seems like you’re saying that every hosted software company is getting it wrong. HTTPS is the foundation of the “zero trust” security model as implemented by Google, MS365, Facebook, AWS, etc.

I think it’s more likely you are not considering the full picture of the TLS ecosystem, or are making arbitrary distinctions like “cert transparency logging isn’t actually part of HTTPS.”

Consider that Symantec basically did what you suggest (mis-issue a cert) and not only was it detected and mitigated, they lost their CA business entirely over it.

>For instance, by default, anyone that can reliably man-in-the-middle port 80 on your website can get an acme certificate for your domain from a reputable certificate authority.

You are leaving out a huge caveat here - exactly where the MITM is taking place matters a lot. In 99% cases this isn't possible unless the victim server network is effectively compromised.

Fast.com loads from nflxvideo.net for me. They have a /speedtest/ path.

Sure, they could apply some kind of advanced DPI assessment based on packets sizes over time and other crap, but if anyone complains it's much easier to just say "well, does speedtest.net work? What about Google's speedtest? Hmm, strange, must be fast.com being slow then!". If they just check for fast.com in the SNI header, I know I'd be loading the speedtest every time I want to watch Netflix.

ECH is slowly coming along, but it's still perfectly possible to detect these speed tests. It just takes much more time and effort to set up right.

I'm honestly surprised the article shows enabling a VPN actually working to fix the messed up network here. That would be a perfectly valid solution in my opinion; if I notice my ISP is messing with my network like this, there's no way I trust them enough not to use a VPN.

AT&T is well know for doing deep packet inspection so that they can properly throttle NetFlix. They are always at the top of the list of Net Neutrality violators that Netflix complains about.