Hacker News Reader

Comment by dx034 | Hacker News Reader

I'd hope LAN is included because while you use some services at home, most people will primarily use LAN services in public Wifis. It would be sensible to have HTTPS used there. They'd have to come up with a new idea of login pages (currently most systems MITM http requests) but otherwise it would make sense if you get a warning when you access pages on your hotel/in-flight Wifi without encryption.

View on HN

> most people will primarily use LAN services in public Wifis

[citation needed] - I would say most people will primarily use LAN services in private home/corporate networks. But I don't have a citation either.

It's different use cases. Maybe one needs the warning, the other one not. But putting the warning on everything and overload the user with them is not the right solution.

Using a self signed CA is a pity, because installing it on every phone, tablet, laptop, tv, pc, ... is cumbersome in a home network, and making all hosts public and depending on an external CA for local resources to not get scary warnings can not be the right solution either.

> [citation needed] - I would say most people will primarily use LAN services in private home/corporate networks. But I don't have a citation either.

Sorry I don't have a citation here. But looking at my coworkers and family, none of them uses services in their home LAN. Most won't even know how to access the router.

On the other hand it's very common to use Wifi in public transport (at least here in London for the tube), airports, trains and hotels. Few people consider security when using these hotspots, making sure that SSL is enabled for all pages would be an improvement.

> On the other hand it's very common to use Wifi in public transport (at least here in London for the tube), airports, trains and hotels. Few people consider security when using these hotspots, making sure that SSL is enabled for all pages would be an improvement.

But do you use LAN services on that network? I think you will use that public hotspot to check facebook, hn, search something on google and stuff like that, not connect to some service in the local network of the hotspot.

Many captive portals operate as a LAN service, where you may be expected to type a password. If the public Wifi has a roaming agreement, that password may even be for your ISP or mobile phone provider.

Yes I agree. But I see that as an exception. The Captive Portal is ONE thing that needs to be secured and be accessible inside the LAN of a public wifi hotspot. I see that as a special case, and public HS providers can work around that (using a domain for the CP they own and got a cert for). But imho that does not mean that browsers should throw security warnings at users for everything else inside their home lan. At least until we have a solution that works for everyone. And

- depending on an external service for your internal home stuff, or

- installing a self signed CA on every device you own

is not a solution.

Until we have something we can replace the status quo with, we should not deprecate it.

> none of them uses services in their home LAN

They don't have printers? They don't connect to a NAT router before their cable modem? They never tether their computer to their phone? Their DVR doesn't have an app to control it? None of them have their receiver connected to their iTunes library?

All these things are preset in the many tech-savvy houses in my area ... and every single one of them (with the exception of the printer) is missing from less tech-oriented houses here. The printers are also usually locally connected when needed in many of my acquaintances' houses.

There's a clear divide that I see daily between households that understand their tech, and households that simply use whatever was set up for them. That divide seems to be growing wider, lately, too ...

While quite a few users will use services on their home lan, contrary to the parent posters statement, I believe the majority of users don't use those services via a web browser.

For instance (to draw from your examples): 1) Most people either install the printer drivers from the manufacture's web site, or let Windows/OSX auto-discover and auto configure the printer with out a web browser. 2) Most users just use the wifi information provided by the cable/DSL provider when they installed the modem, use the WPS button, or install the app that came with their router rather than use a web browser to configure it. 3) Most users will not tether their computer to their phone. 4) Most don't install a DVR app on their phone. If they did, their phone probably communicates with their DVR via some intermediate cloud service. 5) If their receiver auto-connects to their itunes library, it probably won't complain about that itunes not having a public certificate either.

Seems like something that should tie onto the public/private network distinction that Windows makes, though I can't remember ever seeing it in other OSes.

Can we do SSL locally though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com