I just got started recently with OpenSCAD - it's a different beast, but very useful for simple parametric designs. You write code to describe the form of your object - no clicking and dragging things at all.
How is an attacker going to MITM an encrypted connection they don't have the keys for, without having rogue DNS or something similar, i.e. faking the actual target?
It's an unauthenticated encrypted connection, so there's no way for you to know whose keys you're using. The attacker can just tell you "Hi, I'm the server you're looking for. Here's my key." and your client will establish a nice secure, encrypted connection to the malicious attacker's computer. ;)
There are enough example where this is just a bogus scenario. There are a lot of IoT cases that fall apart anyway when the attacker is able to do a MITM attack.
For example if the MITM requires you to have physical access to the machine, you'd also have to cover the physical security first. As long as that is not the case who cares for some connection hijack.
If the data you are actually communicating is in addition just not worth the encryption but has to be because of regulation you are just doing the dance without it being worth it.
They MITM the key exchange step at the beginning, and now they do have the keys. The thing that prevents this in TLS is the chain of signatures asserting identity.
You can have TLS with TOFU, like in the Gemini protocol. At least then, in theory, the MTIM has to happen the first time you connect to a site. There is also the possibility for out of band confirmation of some certificate's fingerprint if you want to be really sure that some Gemini server is the one you hope it is.
Yes, Mallory just pretends to be Alice to Bob and pretends to be Bob to Alice, and they both establish an encrypted connection to Mallory using Diffie-Hellman keys derived from his secrets instead of each other's. Mallory has keys for both of their separate connections at this point and can do whatever he wants. That's why TLS only uses Diffie-Hellman for perfect forward secrecy after Alice has already authenticated Bob. Even if the authentication key gets cracked later Mallory can't reach back into the past and MITM the connection retroactively, so the DH-derived session key remains protected.
If we know each other's DH public key in advance, then you're totally right, DH is secure over an untrusted network. But if we don't know each other's public keys, we have to get them over that same network, and DH can't protect us if the network lies about our public keys. Solving this requires some notion of "identity", i.e. some way to verify that when I say "my public key is abc123" it's actually me who's saying that. That's why it's hard to have privacy without identity.
Connections never start as encrypted, they always start as plain text. There are multiple ways of impersonating an IP even if you don't control DNS, especially if you are in the same local network.
Double especially if it's the ISP or government involved. They can just automatically MITM and reencrypt every connection if there is no identity checks.
TCP SYN is not encrypted, and neither is Client Hello. Even with TCP cookies and TLS session resumption, the initial packet is still unencrypted, and can be intercepted.
However, ECH relies on a trusted 3rd party to provide the key of the server you are intending to talk to. So, it won't work if you have no way of authenticating the server beforehand the way GP was thinking about.
The situation is actually somewhat more complicated than this.
ECH gets the key from the DNS, and there's no real authentication for this data (DNSSEC is rare and is not checked by the browser). See S 10.2 [0] for why this is reasonable.
That is irrelevant. All TCP connections start as a TCP SYN, that can be trivially intercepted and MITMd by anyone. So, if you don't have an out-of-band reason to trust the server certificate (such as trust in the CA that PKI defines, or knowing the signature of the server certificate), you can never be sure your TLS session is secure, regardless of the level of encryption you're using.
After the TCP handshake, the very first payload will be the HTTPS negotiation - and even if you don't use encrypted client hello / encrypted SNI, you still can't spoof it because the certificate chain of trust will not be intact - unless you somehow control the CAs trusted by the browser.
With an intact trust chain, there is NO scenario where a 3rd party can see or modify what the client requests and receives beyond seeing the hostname being requested (and not even that if using ECH/ESNI)
Your "if you don't have an out-of-band reason to trust the server cert" is a fitting description of the global PKI infrastructure, can you explain why you see that as a problem? Apart from the fact that our OSes and browser ship out of the box with a scary long list of trusted CAs, some from fairly dodgy places?
let's not forget that BEFORE that TCP handshake there's probably a DNS lookup where the FQDN of the request is leaked, if you don't have DoH.
well yes! that is the entire point / methodology of TLS. Because you have a trust anchor, you can be sure that at the app layer the connection is "secure".
of course the L3/L4 can be (non) trivially intercepted by anyone, but that is exactly what TLS protects you against.
if simple L4 interception were all that is required, enterprises wouldn't have to install a trust root on end devices, in order to MITM all TLS connections.
the comment you were replying to is
> How is an attacker going to MITM an encrypted connection they don't have the keys for
of course they can intercept the connection, but they can't MITM it in the sense that MITM means -- read the communications. the kind of "MITM" / interception that you are talking about is simply what routers do anyway!
I keep hearing about it, but never got to check out, the name suggests that it may be waste of time. Maybe it’s a fantastic project but name lets it down?
You are on Hacker News, typing on Apple, listening to Daft Punk, reading an article about Steven, the AI butler hosted on Val Town, comment chain you're replying to talks about using self hosted models (probably llama) and Raspberry Pi, yet SillyTavern is the name that trips you up?
Having multiple backends can be a good approach, with various LLMs for different specialized tasks. I haven't tried it yet but WilmerAI is an option for routing your inputs to the appropriate LLM, works well with SillyTavern.
reply