• gmate8@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    I looked at the information they provided, and Gabriel Weinberg really made NamesDB.

    • ttmrichter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      I looked at the malformed certificate and said “I’m not stepping past this point”.

      I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I’ve written code that is still used by SWIFT to this day. Does that make me a banker apologist? (Also which of approximately 10,000 projects named NamesDB?)

      • pinknoise@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 years ago

        The certificate isn’t “malformed” it’s just not signed by one of the holy approved certificate authorities.

        • ttmrichter@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 years ago

          Allow me to rephrase.

          I looked at the dodgy certificate and said “I’m not stepping past this point”.

          • pinknoise@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            You certainly didn’t miss anything, but the certificate isn’t any more dodgy than that of any other site.

            • ttmrichter@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 years ago

              Self-signed certificates are too silly to bother with. Might as well go straight http if you’re going to go self-signed.

              A CA-signed cert reduces the chance of a bad actor between me and the target site. A self-signed cert opens the door to trivial MitM attacks.

              • pinknoise@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 years ago

                A CA-signed cert reduces the chance of a bad actor between me and the target site.

                Because bad actors that can hijack your traffic are unable to get a fake certificate signed?!

                A self-signed cert opens the door to trivial MitM attacks.

                How would that be?

                • ttmrichter@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Getting a fake certificate signed requires state level opposition or entities with that level of resources, and frankly if your opposition is state level, you’re fucked anyway.

                  Self-signed certs let Jimmy-Joe-Bob’s Rifle Range and Real Good Hacker Script Kiddie Ring fake you out in minutes.

                  • pinknoise@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 years ago

                    Getting a fake certificate signed requires state level opposition or entities with that level of resources

                    Yeah like I said, if they can hijack your traffic, they can easily get a fake cert signed.

                    Self-signed certs let Jimmy-Joe-Bob’s Rifle Range and Real Good Hacker Script Kiddie Ring fake you out in minutes.

                    How? They would have to steal the CA key and could only fake the site with the self signed cert. (At least if you don’t add it to your certificate store)