| |||||||||||||
Man in the middleMan in the middlePosted Jan 5, 2008 13:38 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)In reply to: Man in the middle by rfunk Parent article: The future of unencrypted web traffic
An ISP doing this would be carrying out a misrepresentation. In some jurisdictions this would be a forgery offence, in others plain and simple fraud. In the UK it would classify as preparing/planning for unauthorised access and theft of data within the computer misuse and data protection acts. Even if a private prosecution against such an ISP failed, the bad publicity would cost it more than it might have to gain. The Sony rootkit is a similar example and frankly I'm surprised that prosecutions did not take place over it. There seems to be an attitude here that large companies are above the law; that it does not apply to them, but this is partly because the rudimentary laws which do cover the digital domain are widely misunderstood and not yet adequately tested in court in such cases of corporate abuse. Technically the way to defeat this involves DNSSEC and a certificate forest with trees rooted at the top-level domains established and maintained as part and parcel of DNS domain registration and renewal.
(Log in to post comments)
Man in the middle Posted Jan 5, 2008 16:29 UTC (Sat) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] I'm not qualified to say much about the legal aspects in any country, though the combination of big companies and technology often makes for a lack of reason in the judicial world. But your DNSSEC solution does nothing to protect against the ISP doing a MIM attack. The scenario I was talking about doesn't depend on DNS forgery at all. That's the advantage the ISP has that other attackers don't have.
Man in the middle Posted Jan 7, 2008 1:19 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] If DNSSEC secures the DNS and DNS domain registration includes provision of certificates this makes having certificates as routine as registering a domain.
Man in the middle Posted Jan 7, 2008 2:10 UTC (Mon) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] Sorry, you're apparently still not understanding my point. Or I'm not getting yours. Or both.
|
|||||||||||||