Verizon, Cisco, Microsoft And Others Pull The Plug On Default Encryption In HTTP/2

[Guest]

IETF goes back on its promise to encrypt the whole web by default due to pressure from the Open Web Alliance group, which includes Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cisco, Microsoft and others.

Verizon, Cisco, Microsoft And Others Pull The Plug On Default Encryption In HTTP/2 : Read more

 

[Darkk]

Only way this would ever gain serious traction if entire internet is encrypted as default. Most mail servers make encryption as priority.

 

[Revoe]

Just like their promise to encrypt Android 5/L by default...

 

[Onus]

If my browsing were interrupted by an ad page, I would likely become enraged.

 

[Achoo22]

If my browsing were interrupted by an ad page, I would likely become enraged.

It's more subtle than that, for better or worse. My current ISP, Windstream, did and/or does redirect searches through the Firefox toolbar and also 404 (page not found) pages to their own search thingy that happened to include advertisements. This would happen regardless of your DNS settings, because they are/were using DPI (deep packet inspection) and MITM (man-in-the-middle) attacks.

 

[Kewlx25]

If my browsing were interrupted by an ad page, I would likely become enraged.

It's more subtle than that, for better or worse. My current ISP, Windstream, did and/or does redirect searches through the Firefox toolbar and also 404 (page not found) pages to their own search thingy that happened to include advertisements. This would happen regardless of your DNS settings, because they are/were using DPI (deep packet inspection) and MITM (man-in-the-middle) attacks.

http://test.dnssec-or-not.com/

I check boxed DNSSEC to be enabled on my network.

 

[Snur]

you are so naive!!!! The only reason Google and Facebook want encrypted traffic is so they will be the only ones knowing what you are looking at, and inject personalized adds, No one can compete with them if the content is encrypted!!
They are not interested at all to protect your privacy, on the contrary - they are very brutally invading it for their add insertion.....

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

The only reason Google and Facebook want encrypted traffic is so they will be the only ones knowing what you are looking at, and inject personalized adds

... I don't think you really understand how encryption works.

 

[Pherule]

This is appalling news. All these major companies making such a stupid decision. Let's hope Chrome and Firefox unanimously decide to only allow the secure protocol. Google has the power to fight this, blacklist and/or DDOS any website that allows the unsecure protocol. Webmasters will quickly learn.

 

[yumri]

Google has the power to fight this, blacklist and/or DDOS any website that allows the unsecure protocol. Webmasters will quickly learn.

I do not think Google will DDOS any website as much as just block it outright as they can just remove it from the index directly so why DDOS anything if you can just remove the indexed location so others cannot find it in the first place?
WIth Google fighting it i think in the forum they will fight for it as it seems to be the fest for them and their tracking systems to be able to do so with how the search engine is set up atm they will have to do it through insecure channels to present you with better personalized web results instead of any random thing that they think you are looking for. To that though they will just have to change a few lines of code with how it is routed to make it comply with HTTP/2 encryption while still tracking your searches so they can feed you what you want to see and not so much of what you do not want to see.
This is the down side to HTTP/2 the changes to the end side to allow them to keep on doing the tracking that they already are while just not allowing anyone else to do so. Yes i know we do not like the ad injection by ISPs and/or whoever else does it but would you rather just have them asking every other company for it ?
There is always a way to legally jump through hoops to get the information that they want HTTP/2 will just make it harder for them to track you is all ... also harder for a actual hacker to intercept what you are doing and access your personal information.

 

[alextheblue]

None of this really matters if the encryption isn't very strong and most importantly, not already compromised. I wouldn't count on it. It's probably good enough to make the sheep feel safe again for a while, though.

 

[fleetadmiralfluttershy]

Anyone else find the roster of companies/organizations opposed to this really amusing? Because when the who's who of vilified internet companies dislike something, clearly they have your best interests in mind. Incidentally, wouldn't vpn chrome/firefox extensions do this already (to an extent)?

 

[f-14]

Achoo22, my brother has that ISP, what you said is wrong because the only way that happens is by drinking the koolaid, you downloaded the windstream set up exe which changed all your default settings, you are also using the wind stream provided modem , which in their contract agreement gives them right to backdoor access as well as share the wifi if you bothered to read it. you can't activate the modem connection until you click "accept". you drank the koolaid, just admit it. none of thosee actions happened on my brothers computer until that "accept" was clicked for the EULA and that required d/l the windstream client help .exe

i went and bought him a new modem so he never has to go thru that mess again every time the modem drops connection from their back door intrusion my bothers log keeps reporting. connection will drop 1-3 times to 50 times a day depending on what you are doing with your net, seems to be more when you are viewing multimedia content like netflix or hulu my brother says, guess that interferes with their DISH Digital TV Package.