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)