Discussion

RFC 9849

arch-choot: Glad that it's published, I'd been following it since ESNI draft days. Was pretty useful back when I was in India since Jio randomly blocked websites, and cloudflare adopted the ESNI draft on its servers as did Firefox client side which made their SNI based blocking easy to bypass.There was a period where I think both disabled ESNI support as work was made on ECH, which now is pretty far along. I was even able to setup a forked nginx w/ ECH support to build a client(browser) tester[0].Hopefully now ECH can get more mainstream in HTTPS servers allowing for some fun configs.A pretty interesting feature of ECH is that the server does not need to validate the public name (it MAY) , so clients can use public_name's that middleboxes (read: censors) approve to connect to other websites. I'm trying to get this added to the RustTLS client[1], now might be a good time to pick that back up.[0] https://rfc9849.mywaifu.best:3443/ [1] https://github.com/rustls/rustls/issues/2741

ndriscoll: > A pretty interesting feature of ECH is that the server does not need to validate the public name (it MAY) , so clients can use public_name's that middleboxes (read: censors) approve to connect to other websites. I'm trying to get this added to the RustTLS client[1], now might be a good time to pick that back up.Note that it is exactly this type of thing that makes age verification laws reasonable. You're making it technically impossible for even sophisticated parents to censor things without a non-solution like "don't let kids use a computer until they're 18", so naturally the remaining solution is a legal one to put liability on service operators.You're still ultimately going to get the censorship when the law catches up in whatever jurisdiction, but you'll also provide opacity for malware (e.g. ad and tracking software) to do its thing.

AgentK20: How does ECH make it impossible for parents to control their children's access to computers? Sure they can't block sites at the router level, just like your ISP won't be able to block things at the ISP level, but you (the parent) have physical access to the devices in question, and can install client-side software to filter access to the internet.The only thing this makes impossible is the laziest, and easiest to bypass method of filtering the internet.

ndriscoll: "Sure, you can use my wifi while you're over. Just enroll in MDM real quick".As brought up in another thread on the topic, you have things like web browsers embedded in the Spotify app that will happily ignore your policy if you're not doing external filtering.

josefx: > "don't let kids use a computer until they're 18"Ideally you would lock them up in a padded room until then. There is a significant amount of shared real world space that isn't supervised and doesn't require any age verification to enter either.

ndriscoll: Notably, explicitly adult spaces like bars and porn shops are not among them, and a significant amount of virtual space would also not require age verification for the same reason.

EvanAnderson: Because there are network operators who have mal-intent increasingly no network operators are permitted to exercise network-level control. A parent who wants to filter the network access in their house is the same as a despotic regime practicing surveillance and censorship on their citizens.Given that it's pretty much the norm that consumer embedded devices don't respect the owner's wishes network level filtering is the best thing a device owner can do on their own network.It's a mess.I'd like to see consumer regulation to force manufacturers to allow owners complete control over their devices. Then we could have client side filtering on the devices we own.I can't imagine that will happen. I suspect what we'll see, instead, is regulation that further removes owner control of their devices in favor of baking ideas like age or identity verification directly into embedded devices.Then they'll come for the unrestricted general purpose computers.

AgentK20: Fair point.I guess it (network-level filtering) just feels like a dragnet solution that reduces privacy and security for the population at large, when a more targeted and cohesive solution like client-side filtering, having all apps that use web browsers funnel into an OS-level check, etc would accomplish the same goals with improved security.

ndriscoll: I think the population at large generally needs to get over their hangups. No one in a first world country cares if you visit pornhub just like no one cares if you go to amazon. Your ISP has had the ability to see this since the beginning of the web. It does not matter, but we can also have privacy laws restricting their ability to record and share that information. If you really want, you can hide it with a VPN. Since not everything uses a VPN, it's easy to block that traffic if you'd like (so e.g. kids can't use it).You could have cooperation from everyone to hook into some system (California's solution), which I expect will be a cover for more "we need to block unverified software", or you could allow basic centralized filtering as we've had, and ideally compel commercial OS vendors to make it easy to root and MitM their devices for more effective security.

kstrauser: My right to access free information, and my global neighbor’s right to read unofficial information without being jailed or killed for it, outweighs your right to let your right use the Internet without supervision.

RandyOrion: TLS Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) standard is another attempt on encrypting plaintext Server Name Indication (SNI). It is very useful for SNI-based censorship circumvention, which is adopted for years by state-backed systems like the Great Firewall (GFW).The previous attempt of encrypting plaintext SNI is Encrypted Server Name Indication (ESNI), which didn't end well.

ndriscoll: Sure, and if we want to prioritize your ability to do so despite living in an authoritarian hellhole, those of us in countries that respect their citizens rights will have to put these verification systems in place. It just needs to be understood by technologists building this stuff that this is the tradeoff they're making.And it's likely a temporary win there until the authoritarian regimes mandate local monitoring software and send you to the gulag if they detect opaque traffic.

tialaramex: Rules vary. In Britain it was completely normal for say 15-year old me to be in a bar - it was illegal to buy booze but not a problem to be there. But when I travelled to Austin aged 19 I couldn't meet adult members of my team in the hotel bar because I wasn't old enough even though by then I was legal to drink, to marry, to go to war and so on in my own country.A little while after that, back in the UK, I drove my young cousin to the seaside. I didn't carry ID - I don't drink and you're not required to carry ID to drive here† so it was never necessary back then, but she did, so I try to buy her booze, they demand ID, I do not have any ID so I can't buy it even though I'm old enough to drink. So, she just orders her own booze, she's under age but they don't ask because she's pretty.† The law here says police are allowed to ask to see a driving license if you're in charge of a vehicle on a public road, but, since you aren't required to carry it they can require you to attend a police station and show documents within a few days. In practice in 2026 police have network access and so they can very easily go from "Jim Smith, NW1A 4DQ" to a photo and confirmation that you're licensed to drive a bus or whatever if you are co-operative.

JoshTriplett: If you have a device you don't trust, don't allow it on your network, or have an isolated network for such devices. Meanwhile, devices are right to not allow MITMing their traffic and to treat that as a security hole, even if a very tiny fraction of their users might want to MITM it to try to do adblocking on a device they don't trust or fully control, rather than to exploit the device and turn it into a botnet.Along similar lines, a security hole you can use for jailbreaking is also a security hole that could potentially be exploited by malware. As cute as things like "visit this webpage and it'll jailbreak your iPhone" were, it's good that that doesn't work anymore, because that is also a malware vector.I'd like to see more devices being sold that give the user control, like the newly announced GrapheneOS phones for instance. I look forward to seeing how those are received.

ndriscoll: Network segmentation does nothing for the types of attacks these devices perform (e.g. content recognition for upload to their tracking servers, tracking how you navigate their UI, ad delivery). I'm not worried about them spreading worms on my network. The problem is their propensity to exfiltrate data or relay propaganda. The solution to that is a legal one, or barring that, traffic filtering.

JoshTriplett: That was my motivation for the "or" (don't allow it on your network, or put it on an isolated network); it depends on your threat model and what the device could do.

elric: Every time some security related protocol relies on DNS for its magic (looking at you, ACME), I lament the state of DNS providers. They all have different APIs, with different levels of security. Most at least offer some kind of REST API with API tokens for auth, which is relatively easy to set up.Many of those (not looking at any particular Germans..) however only offer a single API token across all DNS zones, which is awful when you're managing many zones. One compromised API token = hundreds of compromised zones.Would be nice if more DNS providers offered granular API tokens, at least on a per-zone basis and ideally on a per-record basis within a zone.

deep1283: ECH is great from a privacy perspective, but I’m curious how well this will actually work in practice.every time the web encrypts more metadata there’s pushback from middleboxes and network operators.

hypeatei: ECH won't be effective until there's a HSTS-style policy that forces browsers to use it. Otherwise, firewalls will continue to strip parameters and downgrade connections[0].0: https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Technical-Tip-Ho...

tialaramex: The Fortigate article proposes that you take a profile in which your end users have said OK, I trust the Fortigate to decide what's allowed, and then you set it to not allow them to use ECH.Notice that if users don't trust the Fortigate all it can do is IP layer blocks, exactly as intended.It seems pointless to try to have a policy where people say they trust somebody else (whoever is operating that Fortigate) to override their will but also they don't want their will overridden, that's an incoherent policy, there's no technical problem there, technology can't help.

hypeatei: Well, yes, this is being used in corporate environments but the end user and the system admin aren't on the same page necessarily. Domain blocking doesn't make much sense in my opinion and should be a thing of the past. You already lack admin rights so what is a block on e.g. mullvad.net actually doing other than stopping someone from reading their blog? They can't install the VPN software.Defense in layers makes sense, but domain blocking was never a "layer" if a hostile actor can just buy a new domain that's not on your blocklist.I think it'd be good if ECH became more widespread so that we can get away from these antiquated control techniques that just result in frustration with no security benefits.

bnjms: This is exactly reverse of the right idea. If parents need to censor things the solutions are the same as corpos are going to. Put the censors at the device or “mitm” the connection, either actually with a proxy, or maybe with a browser and curated apps - which is again on the device.

ndriscoll: This brings us back to "sure you can use my guest wifi, just install my root CA/enroll in MDM".I do agree though that it should be illegal for device manufacturers or application developers to use encryption that the device owner cannot MitM. The owner should always be able to install their own CA and all applications should be required to respect it.

pocksuppet: Why would you want to censor based on network? You don't want to censor based on network, you want to censor based on device. If your 8yo kid is blocked from pornhub, that doesn't mean everyone on your network is blocked from pornhub, and you having the ability to even know if someone on your network is browsing pornhub is a security risk.

hnav: A lot of endpoint protection products rely on SNI sniffing. E.g. Apple's network extensions filters look at TLS handshakes.

arowthway: The server can also advertise a public name that doesn't match any domain it has a TLS certificate for, like example.com or nsa.gov.I'm not 100% sure it's allowed in the specs, but it works in Chrome.As I understand it, without this feature it would be pretty useless for small website owners, since they would need to register a separate domain for their ECH public name, which censors could just block.

shae: I saw this used to obfuscate spam yesterday! Yay?

weitzj: Will this have an impact on Loadbalancers? Like does one have to do client side load balancing like in gRPC?

j16sdiz: The loadbalancer can force a downgrade .

micw: If the load balancer can force a downgrade, an attacker can do it as well.

jeroenhd: Only if the attacker has a valid certificate for the domain to complete the handshake with.Relying on HTTPS and SVCB records will probably allow a downgrade for some attackers, but if browsers roll out something akin to the HSTS preload list, then downgrade attacks become pretty difficult.DNSSEC can also protect against malicious SVCB/HTTPS records and the spec recommends DoT/DoH against local MitM attacks to prevent this.

tptacek: DNSSEC can't protect against an ECH downgrade. ECH attackers are all on-path, and selectively blocking lookups is damaging even if you can't forge them. DoH is the answer here, not record integrity.

jeroenhd: DNSSEC alone is obviously useless because any attacker interested in SNI hostnames can just as easily monitor DNS traffic.However, DoH/DoT without record integrity is about as useful as self-signed HTTPS certificates. You need both for the system to work right in every case.To quote the spec:> Clearly, DNSSEC (if the client validates and hard fails) is a defense against this form of attack, but encrypted DNS transport is also a defense against DNS attacks by attackers on the local network, which is a common case where ClientHello and SNI encryption are desired. Moreover, as noted in the introduction, SNI encryption is less useful without encryption of DNS queries in transit.

maxloh: Why didn't the Indian government block traffics based on IP instead? That would make it much harder to bypass.

arch-choot: If i'm not mistaken its because IPs are actually much easier to rotate than domains.E.g. all the users will remember `example.com` , underlying it doesn't matter what IP it resolves to. If the IP gets "burned" , then the providers can rotate to a new IP (if their provider allows).Vs. telling your users to use a new domain `example.org` , fake websites etc.Also sensible ISPs usually don't block IPs since for services behind a CDN it could lead to other websites being blocked, though of course sometimes this is ignored. See also: https://blog.cloudflare.com/consequences-of-ip-blocking/

boondongle: I wouldn't say you're mistaken, but it's a simplification. In the network world, the capability exists to restrict what BGP advertisements are accepted via RPKI/a peer. Internet providers usually don't because the premium is placed on uptime/connectivity.If tomorrow, everyone said "we don't want IP's from Frankfurt showing up somewhere in Dubai", you'd have a massive technical problem and rearranging to start with but once that was sorted you could geo-lock. IANA and Network providers simply haven't been doing that.The reason it doesn't happen is Devs/Stakeholders want uptime from ISPs/Networks and not something they can't abstract. Basically its just a status quo much like the entire internet reverse-proxying through CDNs is a status quo. It wasn't always like that, and it may not always be like that in the future - just depends which way the winds blow over time.

icehawk: > "we don't want IP's from Frankfurt showing up somewhere in Dubai"From a network perspective statements like that make no sense. IP addresses don't have any sort of physicality,

pocksuppet: They have registration data. Someone could declare they don't want IPs registered to companies from Frankfurt with geofeeds in Frankfurt to be advertised in Dubai.

sgjohnson: It’s not how any of it works.How do you determine to whom an IP is even registered to? They get sub-leased all the time.The best you can do is check who has administrative control over the prefixes RIR info, but that doesn’t mean that anyone with control is the factual user of the IPs.You could check the IRR for the ASN and base it on that, but still.There's also no way to actually know _where_ an IP actually originates from. Only its AS path.The DFZ contains all prefixes announced everywhere, for the internet is completely decentralized.

pocksuppet: > How do you determine to whom an IP is even registered to?You check the RIR's records.> They get sub-leased all the time.With records updated. If not, any consequences from wrong information fall on the lessor and lessee.> There's also no way to actually know _where_ an IP actually originates from. Only its AS path.Ping time from different locations on their upstream AS gives a good guess.

sgjohnson: > With records updated. If not, any consequences from wrong information fall on the lessor and lessee.Not always + there are no consequences whatsoever.Plenty of leasing services will just provide you with IRR & RPKI, without ever touching the actual records.> Ping time from different locations on their upstream AS gives a good guess.Upstream AS is meaningless if it's a T1 carrier. Ping AS6939. They are everywhere.

1vuio0pswjnm7: One topic I have not seen discussed is why CDNs, one by one, stopped allowing "domain fronting" yet ECH, developed by people working at CDNs, essentially uses a similar tactic, i.e., two hostnames, only one of them actually needed for a successful HTTP requestIn truth ECH sends three: Host header + real SNI + dummy SNI

MBCook: As someone hasn’t followed this, what was wrong with ESNI?

krackers: I was curious as well, https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/07/encrypted-clien... has some info>analysis has shown that encrypting only the SNI extension provides incomplete protection. As just one example: during session resumption, the Pre-Shared Key extension could, legally, contain a cleartext copy of exactly the same server name that is encrypted by ESNI. The ESNI approach would require an encrypted variant of every extension with potential privacy implications, and even that exposes the set of extensions advertised. Lastly, real-world use of ESNI has exposed interoperability and deployment challenges that prevented it from being enabled at a wider scale.

ignoramous: > Was pretty useful back when I was in India since Jio randomly blocked websitesWith Jio, you don't really need ECH at all. The blocks are mostly rudimentary and bypassed with encrypted DNS (DoH / DoT / DNSCrypt) and Firefox (which fragments the TLS ClientHello packets into two).Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34232190

arch-choot: Should've added this was back in like 2018 or so. Setting up DoH was harder than enabling SNI, and from my testing back then they were hard filtering on SNI (e.g. I used OpenSSL CLI to set the SNI to `pornhub.com` and connect to "known good" IPs, it'd still get reset).Funnily enough, not setting the SNI and connecting the the origin IP, and then requesting the page worked fine.

tialaramex: > Funnily enough, not setting the SNI and connecting the the origin IP, and then requesting the page worked fine.Such tricks, called "domain fronting" are why ECH exists. The problem is that although domain fronting is effective for the client it's a significant headache for the provider. Big providers involved, such as Cloudflare have always insisted that they want to provide this sort of censorship resisting capability but they don't want to authorize domain fronting because it's a headache for them technically.Let me explain the headache with an example. Say I'm Grand Corp, a French company with 25 million web sites including both cats-are-great.example and fuck-trump.example. Users discover that although the US government has used Emergency Powers to prohibit access to fuck-trump.example, using domain fronting they can connect to cats-are-great.example and request fuck-trump.example pages anyway and the US government's blocking rules can't stop them.What they don't know is that I, Grand Corp had been sharding sites 25 ways, so there was only 1-in-25 chance that this worked - it so happened cats-are-great and fuck-trump were in the same shard, On Thursday during routine software upgrade we happen to switch to 32-way sharding and suddenly it stops working - users are outraged, are the French surrendering to Donald Trump?Or, maybe as a fallback mechanism the other 31 servers can loop back around to fetch your fuck-trump.example pages from the server where they live, but in doing so they double the effective system load. So now my operational costs at Grand Corp for fuck-trump.example doubled because clients were fronting. Ouch.

ignoramous: > Such tricks, called "domain fronting"GP said "not setting SNI"... doing TLS handshake with IP certs don't (need to) set SNI?

tialaramex: That's true, usually with domain fronting you provide the (wrong) SNI. But the same strategy is happening here, you were supposed to provide SNI and you didn't to avoid some potential censorship but it's a headache for the providerThey won't have received a certificate for the IP as a name, it's relatively unusual to have those, the main users are things like DoH and DoT servers since their clients may not know the name of the server... historically if you connect to a TLS server without SNI it just picks a name and presents a certificate for that name - if there's a single name for the machine that definitely works, and if not well - domain fronting.TLS 1.3 even specifies that you must always do SNI and shouldn't expect such tricks to work, because it's such a headache.

tptacek: I don't think this is true; I think this misunderstands the ECH threat model. You don't need record integrity to make ECH a strong defense against on-path ISP attackers; you just need to trust the resolver you're DoH'ing to.