Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikano | Hacker News Reader

> Tcpcrypt is opportunistic encryption. If the other end speaks Tcpcrypt, then your traffic will be encrypted; otherwise it will be in clear text.

I like that, as opposed to requiring users to have to install some plugin before they can even talk to the server.

View on HN

You may like it but it really reduces the security. A man in the middle can make it look like you don't speak Tcpcrypt by manipulating the first few packets of a connection. It's the same issue as mixing HTTP/HTTPS - the HTTP parts leave you vulnerable. If encryption is not mandatory then it might as well not be there.

I hadn't thought about that. However, at the bottom of tcpcrypt.org, it said "You're not using tcpcrypt =(" to me, so perhaps this could be used to show a (less obtrusive and less intimidating than browsers do when they detect the lack of SSL for some content on the page) warning to users that they are not using Tcpcrypt.

Which requires active attacks, ie MITM. And stopping MITM is essentially impossible - the best you can do is use our current CA setup, which assumes the original download of the certificate you got wasn't hijacked.

In preventing passive listeners, like Firesheep, this would work 100% effectively anywhere it can work at all. The only way it reduces security is in making people who don't understand MITM attacks feel they're safer than they are - at absolute worst it's like you don't have it installed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com