News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Retaking the Web Browser, One Small Step at a Time by evanjrowley on Sunday February 09, 2025 @02:17AM (#42989079)
For signed content where confidentiality is not important, an unencrypted HTTP connection is totally fine.

Some components of Public Key Infrastructure itself use unencrypted HTTP for this very reason. See Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) - a method for distributing Certificate Revocation Lists.

Many Linux distributions operate package repositories in this manner. It allows caching of packages through a variety of methods.

Generally, CDNs can distribute signed HTTP content without requiring a customer to share a private key as would normally be required by HTTPS. So long as confidentiality is not a requirement.

The IETF, Google, and Cloudflare have been developing standards for it.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-s...

https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-http-origin-...

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/signed-exchanges

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29281449

Re:Retaking the Web Browser, One Small Step at a Time by yencabulator on Sunday February 09, 2025 @12:49PM (#42992151)
These examples are not in the browser context at all.
Re:Retaking the Web Browser, One Small Step at a Time by evanjrowley on Sunday February 09, 2025 @01:09PM (#42992311)
The package repo one is. You should be able to browse it over HTTP, just as they also used to be browsable via Internet Explorer's FTP mode.

Parent post didn't expliticly ask for browser context only.

Re:Retaking the Web Browser, One Small Step at a Time by josephg on Sunday February 09, 2025 @03:20PM (#42993511)
Why? What benefit is there to browsing a package repo over plain http when https is available?

Mitm attacks seem incredibly dangerous in a package repo. Signing only gets you so far - and they probably don’t protect you from downgrade attacks.

Re:Retaking the Web Browser, One Small Step at a Time by ryandrake on Sunday February 09, 2025 @10:12PM (#42996541)
Whether or not there is a benefit should be a judgement left up to the user.

There's no benefit to saving a file on a floppy disk, but if I tell my computer to copy a file to my floppy drive, I don't expect it to say "No, can't do that. You should be using a USB flash drive--they're better in all ways!"

Re:Retaking the Web Browser, One Small Step at a Time by josephg on Monday February 10, 2025 @02:00AM (#42997624)
I'm sure there's plenty of good reasons for wanting to use unencrypted HTTP, just like there's probably plenty of reasons to enjoy using floppy disks.

But I'm asking you: Why do you want to use unencrypted HTTP? Surely there must be some reason you want to do that, right? You (and others) clearly care a lot about this. I'm sure you're not an idiot. Help me understand your point of view here?

Re:Retaking the Web Browser, One Small Step at a Time by ryandrake on Monday February 10, 2025 @10:57AM (#43001718)
In this specific case, it's a crappy IoT device supporting only TLS 1.1. So when my browsers "helpfully" redirect me from the http:// interface to the https:// interface, they then "helpfully" refuse to work because TLS 1.1 is icky and end-of-life and browsers have decided that means "tell the user to fuck off."

At the end of the day, I worked around all of this browser helpfulness by using Firefox and re-enabling TLS 1.1 in Firefox's settings. I never actually managed to force any browser to use http:// despite trying many proposed solutions in this thread and on the web.

But all that aside, it doesn't really matter why I want to use unencrypted HTTP. I am commanding my computer to do it, and I expect it to carry out my command. My computer is a tool. It should do what I want it to do, even if that might hurt me. If I type in sudo rm -rf /usr, I expect it to do what I tell it to do. Not ask "Why do you want to do that?"