Subj : Binkd and TLS
To   : Tommi Koivula
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Mon Dec 16 2019 12:33 pm

Hello Tommi,

On Sunday December 15 2019 13:50, you wrote to me:

 TK> On 15.12.2019 9:29, Michiel van der Vlist - Alan Ianson :

 MvdV>> So other than the pure sensation of a technical challenge, why?

 TK> Why not? :)

I can think of several reasons:

1) Don't fix it if it ain't broke. I am not convinced yet that binkd's security 
is broke and needs fixing. I am not convinced that TLS offers better protection 
against snooping than what binkd alread hasy. Half of TLS is providing 
authoritative identity to the server. I don't see any value for that in 
Fidonet. TTBOMK there has been no case of someone succesfully setting up a 
rogue node amd maskerading for someone else. If only because there is no 
bussines model..

2) It violates the KISS principle. I see little or no added value in adding TLS 
to Binkd. In the case of Binkd it just makes things more complicatied and prone 
to misconfigutaion and other mishaps.

3) If it were integrated in Binkd it would be one thing, but I looked at 
stunnel for Windows and it exists. But it does not look all that easy to 
implement. There is lots of room for typos and other errors.

4) The stunnel method does not scale well. It has the same problem as running 
an old IPv4 only application via a 6to4 proxy. Incoming is easy, outgoing 
requires a dedicated setting for each destination. Does not scale well beyond 
10 destinations or so.

5) A weakness of TLS is that it depends on a third party: the Certificate 
Authority. I don't like to be dependant om a third party. Fidonet was designed 
as a peer to peer network.

6) I suspect the main reason for the existance of certificates is that it is a 
bussiness model for those issuing the certificates.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

.