Re: State of Gopher and TLS?
"barana ." <[email protected]> Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:15:03 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.gopher.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <SY4P282MB4048CC2F24E89A764C0E7E78D6309@SY4P282MB4048.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> |
does it stop zellous pc fanboys switching off all non secure access so that 1/3 of the gopher constellation is locked out because they default to tsl and claim everyone should upgrade, lord fonteroy-style? ________________________________ From: Hiltjo Posthuma <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2022 6:04 PM To: Nuno Silva <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: State of Gopher and TLS? On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 09:01:32AM +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2022-10-26 01:40 +0100, Steve wrote: > > > > On 25/10/2022 03:30, James Mills wrote: > > > > > > What is the state of Gopher and TLS these days? > [...] > > > > If you are publishing something to the PUBLIC what they heck do you need > > TLS for? > > > > TLS is for VPN's... not for GOPHERS. Certificates were created not to > > secure traffic but to reliably identify both ends of the transaction. > > While you think your traffic is secure it's the meta data that is really > > important. It's not what's being said that is important, it's who's > > talking to who. > > [ I snipped the rest of the quoted message for brevity, I'm not trying > to misrepresent its meaning, but just trying to avoid a too long quote ] > > There is value in having encryption available, shall one need it, > there's also value in having clients that don't automatically engage > into non-encrypted connections. > > But there is also value in having the plain, unencrypted gopher service. > Segmentation of the gopher universe is a real possibility if some > servers start employing big backwards-incompatible changes, especially > without offering compatible, unencrypted gopher. > > So if somebody wants to support/offer encrypted browsing in gopherspace, > IMHO that would ideally go in hand with the regular version of the > protocol. > > Let's not get into a state like HTTPS where some sites are now > unbrowsable with older browser software because of unsupported cyphers > and the like (without HTTP or with HTTP just redirecting to > HTTPS). That, I'd say, is a real problem with gopher: would it still be > enjoyable for those of us browsing gopher for fun if we couldn't open an > old client and browse the gopherspace with it? > > -- > Nuno Silva > I agree and its how its solved: gopher://bitreich.org/0/usr/20h/phlog/2020-06-07T18-28-23-863932.md -- Kind regards, Hiltjo