On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 02:29:15PM -0400, Matthew Graybosch wrote: > Not to disparage Petite Abeille's point about TLS fingerprinting and > blending in to avoid notice, but aren't we sticking out anyway by > listening on port 1965? By default, yes, but if somebody wanted to host a server on port 443 in an attempt to "blend in", they could. How effectively they would blend in would then be a function of how typical their certificate looked. But maybe there's not such a conflict here. Somebody wanting to run a server in extreme stealth mode might just have to accept that this involves sacrificing some efficiency and use fat certs. Cheers, Solderpunk
---
Previous in thread (35 of 39): 🗣️ Matthew Graybosch (hello (a) matthewgraybosch.com)
Next in thread (37 of 39): 🗣️ Petite Abeille (petite.abeille (a) gmail.com)