2011/3/3 Neal McBurnett <n...@bcn.boulder.co.us>: > Contrasting this with STARTTLS might also be instructive, though of > course there are big differences. But last I checked (a while ago) a > substantial amount of SMTP traffic was encrypted based on self-signed > certificates because it was made pretty easy-to-do, though that was > more likely to be used between servers than from an end user.
SMTP over SSL is incredibly odd. SMTP is a communication protocol used between servers. It's unattended. There's no-one to verify the SSL cert of the remote party manually, so it has to be done automatically. You have two options: 1) Require CA validated certs, or 2) accept any SSL cert. Because using self-signed certs is so incredibly pervasive option 1) would basically render you unable to speak SMTP/SSL to anyone, and 2) which is the default, means MitM attacks are the easiest thing in the world, yet people seem perfectly content with this. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
