mrbluze writes:
"A modified HTTP protocol is being proposed (the proposal is funded by AT&T) which would allow ISP's to decrypt and re-encrypt traffic as part of day to day functioning in order to save money on bandwidth through caching. The draft document states:
To distinguish between an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "https" URIs resources and an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "http" URIs resource, the draft proposes to 'register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry specific to signal the usage of HTTP2 to transport "http" URIs resources: h2clr.
The proposal is being criticized by Lauren Weinstein in that it provides a false sense of security to end users who might believe that their communications are actually secure. Can this provide an ISP with an excuse to block or throttle HTTPS traffic?"
(Score: 2, Funny) by stderr on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:12AM
If only there could be a signature file [debian.org] right next to the checksum file [debian.org], so you could check if someone tampered with the checksum file...
Too bad that won't be possible any time soon...
alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" #
(Score: 1) by hankwang on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:19AM
"a signature file right next to the checksum file, so you could check if someone tampered with the checksum file..."
And how do I know that it is the original signature file if I get it over HTTP? Plus it is a pain to deal with it manually.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]