Talk:Opportunistic encryption

Thwaite Freemail
Thawte Freemail seems to no longer be available as of 2009-12-11. See http://www.thawte.com/resources/personal-email-certificates/index.html. "Thawte has discontinued Personal Email Certificates and the Web of Trust (WOT) certification system. For more information, please review our FAQ for the end of life of Web of Trust/Class One. We respect your privacy and encourage you to view our Privacy Statement for more information. Other certificate authorities, such as VeriSign, continue to offer email certificates to digitally sign and encrypt your personal digital communications. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.glen (talk • contribs)

BTNS
Opportunistic encryption involves using a key that might be known, and backing off to non-keyed when the key is not known. It has been mistakenly claimed similar to BTNS (Better Than Nothing Security), which is part of the Anonsec (Anonymous Security) framework by Joe Touch of USC/ISI. BTNS uses unsigned Diffie-Hellman exchanges to establish session keys between parties that have no shared keys or key framework. BTNS does not 'back-off'; in contrast to OE, BTNS allows a unsigned key pair to later be signed using in-band exchanges at other protocol layers, using a combination of Channel Binding and Connection Latching. OE has no relation to BTNS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtouch (talk • contribs) 06:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, BTNS is a type of Opportunistic Encryption. Just because it has an additional capability of validating keys does not make the base mode not opportunistic. BTNS's base capability pretty much is the definition of OE, as it encrypts when the receiver is able. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.222.163 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

HTTPS is no OE
The first paragraph of the "website" section is kinda confusing AND outdated.

It is confusing because it lead to believe that https is OE. I'm no expert but https is not right ?

I think the purpose of this introduction was to highlight the fact that https is costly, hard to setup and maintain, thus the need for OE. But since that is not true anymore (let's encrypt : free, easy to setup and maintain) the whole paragraph is irrelevant and is just adding confusion, we should delete it. I don't want to do it on my own, so I'm waiting for your point of view. MaxLanar (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Opportunistic TLS)
I propose to merge Opportunistic TLS into Opportunistic encryption. They have substantial overlap, and the TLS page has relatively little TLS-specific content and it covers the potential weaknesses in more detail. Gsnedders (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. The term "opportunistic encryption" also captures the idea of "Opportunistic SSL" which co-existed with "Opportunistic TLS" in the days of SSL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.bersh (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - (not clear on who added this text above)
 * Oppose The term "opportunistic encryption" covers a wide range of different types of encryption. Using TLS in an opportunistic fashion is just one of the many different forms here. I think that adding the text on Opportunistic TLS into this article would make THIS article far too long. And, for people wanting to understand more about only the opportunistic use of TLS, the separate article is quicker at getting people to the info they want. - Dyork (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)