Outsourcing is Not Security
10 hours ago somebody asked: "Why does Gemini prefer self-signed certificates?"
Well, based on Lupa, 3,162 (91.7%) of the known capsules use self-signed certificates. But the question goes like this:
Why does Gemini prefer self-signed certificates when in most scenarios, they provide no improved security over plaintext?
Most people are always going to visit a site from the same internet connection. If the ISP decides to MITM, you will never notice. The only devices where you have any chance of ever noticing you have been MITM'd are mobile devices - where you either notice that the public WiFi is MITMing you or your ISP at home. But a desktop computer at home? You will never notice as long as the MITM is in place from the start and continues. Which is exactly what we've seen in basically all cases where an ISP does MITM.
So why does Gemini obsess with having TLS, but configuring it in a way that makes it almost completely useless? Why not either have no TLS at all or have proper TLS?
It didn't take long for people to explain the false assumption made above. The person hosting the bulletin board said: "TLS with TOFU isn't "broken". Even without a 3rd party vouching for identities, it provides a number of advantages thanks to cryptography. Also, client certificates are very handy."
Similarly, one might ask, "whose terrible idea was it to let Microsoft control billions of PCs from the moment they boot?"
There are so many reasons why it's bad and undesirable, as shown in a thread from last summer:
"Secureboot is based on a chain of trust and we don't trust the bastards at the top of it."
"I bet it's because it triggers the question "secure for whom"?"
"Because man I just want a simple BIOS"
"Restricts freedom. Implementation issues. Vendor lock in. Should I go on?"
"Because it's "secure" against the user doing what they want with their computer."
"Because I paid my own money for the machine but some meddling corporation thinks it still owns my hardware and can dictate what I can and cannot boot on it. Secure boot is a repudiation of the sacred notion of personal property. Secure boot is pure evil."
"Microsoft’s role in distributing certs. When we were building this feature for Bottlerocket, a system that needs next level security, Microsoft becomes an obvious threat (to at least the business if not the process of distributing the secure boot database)."
Outsourcing to Microsoft is the opposite of security. Microsoft is just a back doors giant. █