Asklemmy

43940 readers

556 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

705

On the Internet, what is a dead giveaway that someone is actually a kid? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 months ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

536 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Encryption everywhere isn't about the individual content. By making it ubiquitous, it's harder for bad actors to separate the encrypted data they want from the one's they don't. If only special content is encrypted, then just the fact that it's encrypted is a flag for them. It also makes it much harder to ban. It's pretty much impossible to ban the algorithms in TLS at this point. Too much depends on it.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

it's a good thing the entirety of https traffic has encrypted headers than...

Regardless, if it's properly encrypted it doesn't matter if they have it, and are able to confirm who it's from, unless we're talking about a governmental agency or an org with access to one of those mythical quantum computers. In which case it's probably a significant portion of future security.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

TLS already has algorithms hardened against QC. The effects of QC against encryption are greatly exaggerated, anyway. The number of qubits that would be needed to break encryption may be too large to ever be feasible.

Get IPv6 going and stuff like SNI becomes unnecessary.