> “Server Name Indication” (SNI)
into the trash it goes. anyone who support https everywhere and ever slightly tolerates SNI is a fool.
into the trash it goes. anyone who support https everywhere and ever slightly tolerates SNI is a fool.
It's pretty much mandatory if you intend to serve multiple domains with different certificates from the same host/proxy, which seems like a very very common use case, and there is no alternative to this right now.
"we need MitM for performance". listen to yourself. if some optimization breaks security, you do not optimize.
It doesn't. SNI doesn't leak the URL being accessed, or anything that isn't encoded in the hostame.
basically it moves private info in the plain text header "for edge performance"
No. Not even remotely true. If you can write a coherent argument that substantiates this claim then I will address it.