Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by RayLopez99, Oct 28, 2010.

  1. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    So my book on https and Windows Communication Foundation technology
    says that if any computer between your SSL certificate secured
    computer and the client machine reading this certificate does not
    support SSL, then the entire https link is not secure and your data
    can be compromised. That makes no sense to me, because I thought the
    entire data stream is encrypted, but that's what it says. And I've
    even seen this on the net.

    So why do people blindly trust SSL and HTTPS as if it's unbreakable?
    Is it because most traffic goes through at most two or three hops, and
    likely these hops are up-to-date and support SSL?

    Even if so, you're taking a risk that somewhere between somebody will
    fail to support SSL and your message will be unencrypted.

    Bet most if not all of you reading this thread did not know this. So
    called experts, right.

    RL
    RayLopez99, Oct 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "RayLopez99" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > So my book on https and Windows Communication Foundation technology
    > says that if any computer between your SSL certificate secured
    > computer and the client machine reading this certificate does not
    > support SSL, then the entire https link is not secure and your data
    > can be compromised. That makes no sense to me, because I thought the
    > entire data stream is encrypted, but that's what it says. And I've
    > even seen this on the net.


    Encryption is only as secure as the key management system is.

    > So why do people blindly trust SSL and HTTPS as if it's unbreakable?


    Because they don't understand security as it pertains to encryption (or
    vice versa).

    > Is it because most traffic goes through at most two or three hops, and
    > likely these hops are up-to-date and support SSL?


    ???

    > Even if so, you're taking a risk that somewhere between somebody will
    > fail to support SSL and your message will be unencrypted.


    It just unencrypts, like that?

    ....I don't think so.

    > Bet most if not all of you reading this thread did not know this. So
    > called experts, right.


    I don't think that you really fully understand what you are talking
    about, so it seems ironic when you lamely attempt to insult and troll
    those you somehow believe to be *experts* in so many disparate
    crossposted groups.
    FromTheRafters, Oct 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RayLopez99

    idbeholda Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Oct 28, 5:47 pm, RayLopez99 <> wrote:
    > So my book on https and Windows Communication Foundation technology
    > says that if any computer between your SSL certificate secured
    > computer and the client machine reading this certificate does not
    > support SSL, then the entire https link is not secure and your data
    > can be compromised.  That makes no sense to me, because I thought the
    > entire data stream is encrypted, but that's what it says.  And I've
    > even seen this on the net.
    >
    > So why do people blindly trust SSL and HTTPS as if it's unbreakable?
    > Is it because most traffic goes through at most two or three hops, and
    > likely these hops are up-to-date and support SSL?
    >
    > Even if so, you're taking a risk that somewhere between somebody will
    > fail to support SSL and your message will be unencrypted.
    >
    > Bet most if not all of you reading this thread did not know this.  So
    > called experts, right.
    >
    > RL


    Your profile suggests that you work in the agricultural industry. If
    those who work in the agricultural industry knew that you're giving
    them a bad name, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to toss you into the
    corn feeder a second time.
    idbeholda, Oct 29, 2010
    #3
  4. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Oct 29, 3:44 am, "FromTheRafters" <>
    wrote:
    > "RayLopez99" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > So my book on https and Windows Communication Foundation technology
    > > says that if any computer between your SSL certificate secured
    > > computer and the client machine reading this certificate does not
    > > support SSL, then the entire https link is not secure and your data
    > > can be compromised.  That makes no sense to me, because I thought the
    > > entire data stream is encrypted, but that's what it says.  And I've
    > > even seen this on the net.

    >
    > Encryption is only as secure as the key management system is.


    Nope, Shiite->4Brains, that' s NOT what we are talking about. Try
    again. We are talking about HTTPS, not key management. Yes, it's
    true that key management is only as secure as the lock on your door to
    the secondary storage holding said keys, but again, that's not at
    issue here.

    >
    > > So why do people blindly trust SSL and HTTPS as if it's unbreakable?

    >
    > Because they don't understand security as it pertains to encryption (or
    > vice versa).
    >
    > > Is it because most traffic goes through at most two or three hops, and
    > > likely these hops are up-to-date and support SSL?

    >
    > ???


    Right. ???. That's your value add to this debate: ???. That should
    be your middle name: ??? The Reflex.

    >
    > > Even if so, you're taking a risk that somewhere between somebody will
    > > fail to support SSL and your message will be unencrypted.

    >
    > It just unencrypts, like that?


    Yes, just like that. What you fail to understand (among your many
    other failures) is the difference between message level security and
    transport level security. HTTPS is the latter not the former. Here's
    a reference for you to 'bone up' on, bonehead: (http://
    msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms733137%28VS.90%29.aspx “End-to-end
    security. A secure transport, such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) works
    only when the communication is point-to-point. If the message is
    routed to one or more SOAP intermediaries before reaching the ultimate
    receiver, the message itself is not protected once an intermediary
    reads it from the wire. Additionally, the client authentication
    information is available only to the first intermediary and must be
    transmitted to the ultimate received in out-of-band fashion, if
    necessary. This applies even if the entire route uses SSL security
    between individual hops. Because message security works directly with
    the message and secures the XML in it, the security stays with the
    message regardless of how many intermediaries are involved with the
    message before it reaches the ultimate receiver. This enables true end-
    to-end security scenario.”)

    >
    > ...I don't think so.
    >


    You *STILL* don't think so, even after reading the above? Man youz
    stupid.

    > > Bet most if not all of you reading this thread did not know this.  So
    > > called experts, right.

    >
    > I don't think that you really fully understand what you are talking
    > about, so it seems ironic when you lamely attempt to insult and troll
    > those you somehow believe to be *experts* in so many disparate
    > crossposted groups.


    NOT. I hope you lerned something from this thread, dopehead.

    Anybody else? C'mon down! Insults are free of charge.

    RL
    RayLopez99, Oct 29, 2010
    #4
  5. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Oct 29, 1:32 pm, RayLopez99 <> wrote:

    >
    > Yes, just like that.  What you fail to understand (among your many
    > other failures) is the difference between message level security and
    > transport level security.  HTTPS is the latter not the former.  Here's
    > a reference for you to 'bone up' on, bonehead: (http://
    > msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms733137%28VS.90%29.aspx “End-to-end
    > security. A secure transport, such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) works
    > only when the communication is point-to-point. If the message is
    > routed to one or more SOAP intermediaries before reaching the ultimate
    > receiver, the message itself is not protected once an intermediary
    > reads it from the wire. Additionally, the client authentication
    > information is available only to the first intermediary and must be
    > transmitted to the ultimate received in out-of-band fashion, if
    > necessary. This applies even if the entire route uses SSL security
    > between individual hops. Because message security works directly with
    > the message and secures the XML in it, the security stays with the
    > message regardless of how many intermediaries are involved with the
    > message before it reaches the ultimate receiver. This enables true end-
    > to-end security scenario.”)
    >


    The only thing left to debate--and I doubt the small minds in this
    group has the capacity to address this issue (no thanks in advance)--
    is how often "SOAP intermediaries" are present in a 'typical' message
    route. I would bet that for most 'routine' messages such as home user
    to bank server, there would be no intermediaries, and the ISP server
    is just "pass through" and would not require SOAP (I would imagine).
    But this is a question for a real expert, not the dunces that hang
    around the virtual water cooler that passes for Usenet these days.

    RL
    RayLopez99, Oct 29, 2010
    #5
  6. Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    "RayLopez99" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Oct 29, 3:44 am, "FromTheRafters" <>
    wrote:
    > "RayLopez99" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > So my book on https and Windows Communication Foundation technology
    > > says that if any computer between your SSL certificate secured
    > > computer and the client machine reading this certificate does not
    > > support SSL, then the entire https link is not secure and your data
    > > can be compromised. That makes no sense to me, because I thought the
    > > entire data stream is encrypted, but that's what it says. And I've
    > > even seen this on the net.

    >
    > Encryption is only as secure as the key management system is.


    Nope, Shiite->4Brains, that' s NOT what we are talking about.

    ***
    So it just magically unencrypts itself?
    ***

    Try again. We are talking about HTTPS, not key management. Yes, it's
    true that key management is only as secure as the lock on your door to
    the secondary storage holding said keys, but again, that's not at
    issue here.

    ***
    So it just magically unencrypts itself?
    ***

    > > So why do people blindly trust SSL and HTTPS as if it's unbreakable?

    >
    > Because they don't understand security as it pertains to encryption
    > (or
    > vice versa).
    >
    > > Is it because most traffic goes through at most two or three hops,
    > > and
    > > likely these hops are up-to-date and support SSL?

    >
    > ???


    Right. ???. That's your value add to this debate: ???. That should
    be your middle name: ??? The Reflex.

    ***
    That was an indication that I didn't understand what you were talking
    about, but I see now what that was so.
    ***

    > > Even if so, you're taking a risk that somewhere between somebody
    > > will
    > > fail to support SSL and your message will be unencrypted.

    >
    > It just unencrypts, like that?


    Yes, just like that. What you fail to understand (among your many
    other failures) is the difference between message level security and
    transport level security. HTTPS is the latter not the former.

    ***
    Why the animosity? Can you explain how something can encrypt at one end,
    and decrypt at the other, without some kind of key being involved?
    ***

    [...]

    > ...I don't think so.


    You *STILL* don't think so, even after reading the above? Man youz
    stupid.

    ***
    Not really, it's just that you not only fail to make sense, you fail to
    understand the subject enough to explain to me what you actually meant.

    ....and you're still acting like an asshole toward me for no good reason
    (aside from the obvious trolling that is).
    ***

    > > Bet most if not all of you reading this thread did not know this. So
    > > called experts, right.

    >
    > I don't think that you really fully understand what you are talking
    > about, so it seems ironic when you lamely attempt to insult and troll
    > those you somehow believe to be *experts* in so many disparate
    > crossposted groups.


    NOT. I hope you lerned something from this thread, dopehead.

    ***
    Yep, I learned that you are a stupid troll.

    Bye-bye
    ***
    FromTheRafters, Oct 29, 2010
    #6
  7. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Oct 29, 9:36 pm, "FromTheRafters" <>
    wrote:

    > ***
    > Yep, I learned that you are a stupid troll.
    >
    > Bye-bye
    > ***


    Nope. You fail to understand how transport security works. The one
    passage that was not flamebait you clipped (and I reproduce it again,
    below).

    So, where you trolling then? You clearly have no interest in lerning
    anything from this thread, trollfeeder.

    And I don't know why SOAP intermediaries break https. That really was
    my question to the group.

    Bye.

    RL

    (http://
    msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms733137%28VS.90%29.aspx “End-to-end
    security. A secure transport, such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)
    works
    only when the communication is point-to-point. If the message is
    routed to one or more SOAP intermediaries before reaching the
    ultimate
    receiver, the message itself is not protected once an intermediary
    reads it from the wire. Additionally, the client authentication
    information is available only to the first intermediary and must be
    transmitted to the ultimate received in out-of-band fashion, if
    necessary. This applies even if the entire route uses SSL security
    between individual hops. Because message security works directly with
    the message and secures the XML in it, the security stays with the
    message regardless of how many intermediaries are involved with the
    message before it reaches the ultimate receiver. This enables true
    end-
    to-end security scenario.”)
    RayLopez99, Oct 29, 2010
    #7
  8. RayLopez99

    Jason Keats Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    RayLopez99 wrote:
    >
    > And I don't know why SOAP intermediaries break https. That really was
    > my question to the group.
    >


    Perhaps Microsoft didn't explain it well enough for you.

    Design 1. C (client) -- internet -- Z (destination server)

    If your client uses HTTPS and the URL of Z, then your message is safe.

    Design 2. C -- internet -- S (intermediary) -- internet -- Z

    If your client uses the URL of S, then S uses the URL of Z (even if
    they're both using HTTPS) then your message may be read/altered by S.

    What was not said is that in design 2, S should really be considered C's
    destination, and Z is S's destination - and that protocol encryption
    (HTTPS) only protects your message on its path through the internet.

    If you don't want S to be able to read/alter your message then encrypt
    the message so that only Z can read it - or use design 1 and HTTPS.
    Jason Keats, Oct 30, 2010
    #8
  9. On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:47:35 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99 wrote:

    > So my book


    What book?

    > on https and Windows Communication Foundation technology
    > says that if any computer between your SSL certificate secured
    > computer and the client machine reading this certificate does not
    > support SSL, then the entire https link is not secure and your data
    > can be compromised. That makes no sense to me, because I thought the
    > entire data stream is encrypted, but that's what it says. And I've
    > even seen this on the net.


    Where?

    > So why do people blindly trust SSL and HTTPS as if it's unbreakable?
    > Is it because most traffic goes through at most two or three hops, and
    > likely these hops are up-to-date and support SSL?
    >
    > Even if so, you're taking a risk that somewhere between somebody will
    > fail to support SSL and your message will be unencrypted.
    >
    > Bet most if not all of you reading this thread did not know this. So
    > called experts, right.


    *roflmao*

    --
    "The Toast of Buffalo! = http://tinyurl.com/2v9sjf9
    Ari himself, with his unerring sense of what is hip, contributed a box
    of doughnuts
    from Famous Doughnuts, a company he owns."
    Ari Silverstein, Oct 30, 2010
    #9
  10. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Oct 30, 4:19 am, Jason Keats <>
    wrote:
    > RayLopez99 wrote:
    >
    > > And I don't know why SOAP intermediaries break https.  That really was
    > > my question to the group.

    >
    > Perhaps Microsoft didn't explain it well enough for you.


    Neither did you Jason, but I appreciate the attempt. Please read on
    however.

    >
    > Design 1. C (client) -- internet -- Z (destination server)
    >
    > If your client uses HTTPS and the URL of Z, then your message is safe.
    >
    > Design 2. C -- internet -- S (intermediary) -- internet -- Z
    >
    > If your client uses the URL of S, then S uses the URL of Z (even if
    > they're both using HTTPS) then your message may be read/altered by S.


    What are you saying here? Are you saying that S has the ability to
    "alter" your message, by say garbling it? To make it unreadable?
    (That is, change every letter Y to X and Z character to A, etc? That
    would be simple vandalism, and not really a security 'breach' in my
    mind. Or are you saying that S has a private key to the HTTPS and can
    unencrypt your encrypted message? That was what I thought originally--
    and it's still not clear how S can get a private key--only "Z" has
    such a key (that's my understanding). I thought HTTPS uses some form
    of asymmetric public key (I trust you know what this is), and that the
    only holder of the private key is Z. But if HTTPS uses a symmetric
    key, then I can see how S can indeed decrypt the message from C and
    read it. Please explain. That's the last time I use "please" in
    this thread BTW.

    >
    > What was not said is that in design 2, S should really be considered C's
    > destination, and Z is S's destination - and that protocol encryption
    > (HTTPS) only protects your message on its path through the internet.


    Again, that is how I thought things work: using a asymmetric key,
    that's exactly how things should work: every two points in a chain of
    transmission is as strong as the next two points--there are no weak
    links.

    >
    > If you don't want S to be able to read/alter your message then encrypt
    > the message so that only Z {YES, THIS IS MESSAGE SECURITY, I AGREE} can read it - or use design 1 and HTTPS {I DON'T SEE HOW}


    RL
    RayLopez99, Oct 30, 2010
    #10
  11. RayLopez99

    Jason Keats Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    RayLopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >> Design 2. C -- internet -- S (intermediary) -- internet -- Z
    >>
    >> If your client uses the URL of S, then S uses the URL of Z (even if
    >> they're both using HTTPS) then your message may be read/altered by S.

    >
    > What are you saying here? Are you saying that S has the ability to
    > "alter" your message, by say garbling it? To make it unreadable?
    > (That is, change every letter Y to X and Z character to A, etc? That
    > would be simple vandalism, and not really a security 'breach' in my
    > mind. Or are you saying that S has a private key to the HTTPS and can
    > unencrypt your encrypted message? That was what I thought originally--
    > and it's still not clear how S can get a private key--only "Z" has
    > such a key (that's my understanding).


    As I said, in design 2, C is really communicating with S. If you wrote
    S, then all is good - you can probably trust it. However, the service S
    receives the original (decrypted) message - because its URL was used by C.

    S's job is to communicate with Z. If it uses HTTPS to do that, then the
    original message is again (protocol) encrypted and sent on its way to Z.

    All anyone is saying is that because C was "talking" to S (using HTTPS),
    and not directly to Z, then S gets to see/read the original message
    (assuming no message encryption before being posted by C).

    Possible reasons for having an intermediary in the process include:
    - load balancing (there could really be several Z's)
    - S's job may be to translate/transpose the original message into a form
    that Z can understand
    - extra security: the firewall between C and S may be configured
    differently to the one between S and Z
    Jason Keats, Oct 31, 2010
    #11
  12. RayLopez99

    idbeholda Guest

    RayLopez99 had a hard date last night. That's why he can't sit down.

    Don't worry, a package of suppositories are on their way.
    idbeholda, Oct 31, 2010
    #12
  13. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Oct 31, 4:06 am, Jason Keats <>
    wrote:
    > RayLopez99 wrote:
    >
    > >> Design 2. C -- internet -- S (intermediary) -- internet -- Z

    >
    > >> If your client uses the URL of S, then S uses the URL of Z (even if
    > >> they're both using HTTPS) then your message may be read/altered by S.

    >
    > > What are you saying here?  Are you saying that S has the ability to
    > > "alter" your message, by say garbling it?  To make it unreadable?
    > > (That is, change every letter Y to X and Z character to A, etc?  That
    > > would be simple vandalism, and not really a security 'breach' in my
    > > mind.  Or are you saying that S has a private key to the HTTPS and can
    > > unencrypt your encrypted message?  That was what I thought originally--
    > > and it's still not clear how S can get a private key--only "Z" has
    > > such a key (that's my understanding).

    >
    > As I said, in design 2, C is really communicating with S. If you wrote
    > S, then all is good - you can probably trust it. However, the service S
    > receives the original (decrypted) message - because its URL was used by C..
    >
    > S's job is to communicate with Z. If it uses HTTPS to do that, then the
    > original message is again (protocol) encrypted and sent on its way to Z.
    >
    > All anyone is saying is that because C was "talking" to S (using HTTPS),
    > and not directly to Z, then S gets to see/read the original message
    > (assuming no message encryption before being posted by C).
    >
    > Possible reasons for having an intermediary in the process include:
    > - load balancing (there could really be several Z's)
    > - S's job may be to translate/transpose the original message into a form
    > that Z can understand
    > - extra security: the firewall between C and S may be configured
    > differently to the one between S and Z


    Are you sure of this? You use the term "load balancing" which is a
    term of art database engineers use, so I take it you have some
    knowledge of this area, but frankly your suggestion that what people
    are saying about HTTPS and intermediaries is that the intermediary can
    decrypt an HTTPS stream and read the unencrypted message is a bit daft
    to me.

    Here's why: if S, the intermediary, has the ability to decrypt the
    SSL certificate, it means it also has a private key (like Z does).
    That means at some point Z, the final destination endpoint, gave S the
    private key to decrypt message streams--otherwise how could S do it?
    Or perhaps C, the client, did. In either case somebody at either
    endpoint had to 'trust' S. If that trust was misplaced, and it turns
    out S is a crook, well that's life--but somebody made the conscious
    decision to trust S.

    Does this make sense? So 'human error' in trusting an intermediary
    like S is what Microsoft is talking about? That should be made more
    clear if so.

    RL
    RayLopez99, Oct 31, 2010
    #13
  14. RayLopez99

    idbeholda Guest

    RayLopez99 had a hard date last night. That's why he can't sit down.

    He said load.
    idbeholda, Oct 31, 2010
    #14
  15. RayLopez99

    Jason Keats Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    RayLopez99 wrote:
    >
    > Here's why: if S, the intermediary, has the ability to decrypt the
    > SSL certificate, it means it also has a private key (like Z does).
    > That means at some point Z, the final destination endpoint, gave S the
    > private key to decrypt message streams--otherwise how could S do it?
    > Or perhaps C, the client, did.

    <snip>
    >
    > Does this make sense?


    No. Private keys are never shared with anyone.

    Further reading:
    http://www.ourshop.com/resources/ssl.html
    Jason Keats, Nov 1, 2010
    #15
  16. Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    "Jason Keats" <> wrote in message
    news:cKyzo.1104$...
    > RayLopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >> Here's why: if S, the intermediary, has the ability to decrypt the
    >> SSL certificate, it means it also has a private key (like Z does).
    >> That means at some point Z, the final destination endpoint, gave S
    >> the
    >> private key to decrypt message streams--otherwise how could S do it?
    >> Or perhaps C, the client, did.

    > <snip>
    >>
    >> Does this make sense?

    >
    > No. Private keys are never shared with anyone.
    >
    > Further reading:
    > http://www.ourshop.com/resources/ssl.html


    It may take a while, but eventually he will understand that the data is
    "covered" only in transit just as with TPM supported disk encryption it
    is only covered at rest.
    FromTheRafters, Nov 1, 2010
    #16
  17. RayLopez99

    RayLopez99 Guest

    Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Nov 1, 4:13 pm, "FromTheRafters" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Does this make sense?

    >
    > > No. Private keys are never shared with anyone.

    >
    > > Further reading:
    > >http://www.ourshop.com/resources/ssl.html

    >
    > It may take a while, but eventually he will understand that the data is
    > "covered" only in transit just as with TPM supported disk encryption it
    > is only covered at rest.


    Explain please in simple words. You are saying encryption of https
    data is only done in transit? Why/how? To be more explicit: C
    (client) --> S (intermediary) --> Z (endpoint/host server): you are
    saying encryption is only at the "-->" in between the points, C, S and
    Z? That is, at the servers C,S,Z you can read the data packets in
    plaintext, but when they transmit the data stream they become
    encrypted ciphertext?

    If so, this does make Jason Keats explanation work, but I would be
    very surprised if this is so. Why would anybody design an algorithm
    that decrypts as soon as it reaches a server? If routing is the
    reason, you can (I would suppose) just keep the headers decrypted and
    route the message using the headers, which is conventional.

    Please confirm. That's the second time I've used please in this post
    and twice too many.

    RL
    RayLopez99, Nov 1, 2010
    #17
  18. Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:02:58 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99 wrote:

    > Please explain. That's the last time I use "please" in
    > this thread BTW.


    Outside of being an assclown, you're a liar too. How's that working
    for you in this thread? lol
    --
    Passwords, people, they are not just for game shows. If you refuse to
    make the effort to remember a few long, diverse passwords, then don't
    scream at me when your FICO is 496 and your bank accounts are zeroed
    out.
    Ari Silverstein, Nov 1, 2010
    #18
  19. Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:08:49 -0700 (PDT), RayLopez99 wrote:

    > That's the second time I've used please in this post
    > and twice too many.


    See what I mean? Pants on fire there, assclown.
    --
    http://tr.im/1fa3
    Ari Silverstein, Nov 1, 2010
    #19
  20. Re: Anybody know how https *really* works? I didn't think so

    "RayLopez99" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Nov 1, 4:13 pm, "FromTheRafters" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Does this make sense?

    >
    > > No. Private keys are never shared with anyone.

    >
    > > Further reading:
    > >http://www.ourshop.com/resources/ssl.html

    >
    > It may take a while, but eventually he will understand that the data
    > is
    > "covered" only in transit just as with TPM supported disk encryption
    > it
    > is only covered at rest.


    Explain please in simple words. You are saying encryption of https
    data is only done in transit? Why/how? To be more explicit: C
    (client) --> S (intermediary) --> Z (endpoint/host server): you are
    saying encryption is only at the "-->" in between the points, C, S and
    Z? That is, at the servers C,S,Z you can read the data packets in
    plaintext, but when they transmit the data stream they become
    encrypted ciphertext?

    ***
    The client and server have a trust relationship, they agree on a keyset
    and the data is encrypted by the client, sent out on the wire, received
    by the server, and decrypted by the key. If it needs to do it again (not
    the final destination), another trust relationship is set up btween the
    server and the next step and the process may be repeated (new
    relationships, new keys, no transitive trust). The idea was to have the
    data covered so that sniffing or otherwise capturing packets enroute
    would not have value to the interloper (the encryption security is as
    good as the key management - if the interloper (you don't have a trust
    relationship with) doesn't have the key, he cannot convert the
    ciphertext to plaintext.

    You are *trusting* all of the SSL capable servers with your data unless
    you "cover" your data for the entire source to destination trip.
    ***

    If so, this does make Jason Keats explanation work, but I would be
    very surprised if this is so. Why would anybody design an algorithm
    that decrypts as soon as it reaches a server?

    ***
    Those whom are only concerned with the security (integrity) of the
    point-to-point communications.

    Think of the old can-to-can voice communication, and someone
    eavesdropping with a tap on the string. You still want to be able to
    speak into one end and hear from the other, but you want the
    eavesdropper to get nothing intelligible. If your can-to-can connection
    is only one part of a relay communication network, you wouldn't be
    concerned about the relay personnel actually having access to that
    information uncovered. If you were concerned about that, then end-to-end
    coverage is what you really want.
    ***
    FromTheRafters, Nov 2, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. KLXrider
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    865
    KLXrider
    Jul 15, 2003
  2. Adriano
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    920
    mark mandel
    Dec 15, 2003
  3. Fogar
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    682
    Erick
    Jan 17, 2006
  4. victor

    Re: Netbooks anyone? Didn't think so.

    victor, Jun 2, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    334
    victor
    Jun 3, 2010
  5. Meat Plow

    Now why didn't I think of this?

    Meat Plow, Aug 4, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    590
    Mike Yetto
    Aug 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page