[EXT] RE: Widespread Firefox issues

Charles Bronson cbronson at iec-electronics.com
Sat May 4 13:02:56 UTC 2019

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf at dessus.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2019 3:14:53 AM
To: NANOG list
Cc: Constantine A. Murenin
Subject: [EXT] RE: Widespread Firefox issues

HTTPS: has nothing to do with the website being "secure".  https: means that transport layer security (encryption) is in effect.  https: is a PRIVACY measure, not a SECURITY measure.

The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: NANOG [ mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Constantine
>A. Murenin
>Sent: Friday, 3 May, 2019 21:02
>To: Brielle Bruns
>Cc: NANOG list
>Subject: Re: Widespread Firefox issues
>On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 20:57, Brielle Bruns <bruns at 2mbit.com> wrote:
>       Just an FYI since this is bound to impact users:
>       https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973
>       Basically, Mozilla forgot to renew an intermediate cert, and
>       Firefox browsers have mass-disabled addons.
>       Whoops.
>This is why it's important that every single website on the internet
>is available ONLY over HTTPS.  Don't forget to install an HSTS
>policy, too, so, if anyone ever visits Kazakhstan or a security-
>conscious corporate office, they'll be prevented from accessing the
>cute pictures of cats on your fully static website.  Of course, don't
>forget to abandon HTTP, too, and simply issue 301 Moved Permanently
>redirects from all HTTP targets to HTTPS, to cover all the bases.
>Backwards compatibility?  Don't you worry — no browser lets anyone
>remove HSTS, once installed, so, you're golden.  And HTTPS links
>won't fallback to HTTP, either, so, you're good there, too — your
>cute cats are safe and secure, and once folks link to your new site
>under https://, your future self will be safe and secure from ever
>having the option to go insecure again.  I mean, why would anyone go
>"insecure"?  Especially now with LetsEncrypt?
>Oh, wait…
>Wait a moment, and who's the biggest player behind the HTTPS-only
>movement?  Oh, and Mozilla's one of the biggest backers of
>LetsEncrypt, too?  I see…  Well, nothing to see here, move along!

I may be wrong and if so, I am happy to be corrected, but I don't think that statement is entirely true. The certificate not only encrypts the connection, it also verifies that you are connecting to the server you intend to. That second component is a security measure.

Charles Bronson

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190504/d4dfd55e/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list