Comment on UK households could face VPN 'ban' after use skyrockets following Online Safety Bill
glog78@digitalcourage.social 3 days agoI said (picture) your deep inspection falls short to real end 2 end. You said your firewall can break end 2 end ... nope they can't and never will and you exactly said this in your last post too. (Sidenote -> i can gpg a text and post it public even with https .. for 99% it will be giberish and only the person who got the right key material will be able to read it ) ... so using deep package inspection to identify something you want to protect kids from is just a lie ...
Attachment: digitalcourage.social ↗
arc99@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I honestly do not know what you are saying. Deep packet inspection through a firewall that does mitm interception demonstrably happens. It is not up for debate.
glog78@digitalcourage.social 3 days ago
@arc99 you still don't understand end 2 end encryption. Yes man in the middle decryption can be done. First for this to happen you need to accept the certificates of the firewall ( which in terms of a home PC you can't force anyone to do ). Second even if you can encrypt the https packets , you can still put an additional layer on top which only you and the reciever has the keys too.
To give you an example you can easy write down a base64 encoded binary blob in any text field on a website. If this binary blob has been encrypted before noone will be able to tell what is inside.
So breaking https is useless if someone really wants to hide informations. So no your deep packet inspection is totally useless in this case besides you know someone did put strange stuff in a text on a website.
arc99@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No, YOU don’t understand end to end encryption, and you don’t understand browsers. You say you could “write down a base64 encoded binary blob on a website”. Yes you could and how do you decrypt it? The asnwer is with a key (asymmetric or symmetric) that the recipient must have in memory of the receiving software - the browser that the filter has already intercepted and compromised. So “moar layers” is not protection since the filter could inject any JS it likes to reveal the inner key and/or conversation. It could do this ad nauseum and the only protection is how determined the filter is.
But this is also a nonsense argument just on a practical level. The problem is kids connecting to adult websites, or websites with some adult content. The government thinks it reasonable that every single website that potentially hosts adult content should capture proof of identity of adults. I contend that really the issue is kids having access to those websites at all, and that proxies can and would be a far more effective way to control the issue without imposing on adults. No solution is perfect, but a filter is a far more effective way than entrusting some random website with personal information.
glog78@digitalcourage.social 1 day ago
@arc99 the same way as you did encrypt it ??? with ggp ?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35584461/gpg-encryption-and-decryption-of-a-folder-using-command-line
???? the needed certificate are exchanged by for example a matrix / telegram or personal ????