A HTTPS site uses a self-signed certificate. A developer argues this is fine since 'the traffic is still encrypted'. What critical protection does a self-signed certificate LACK compared to a CA-signed certificate?

• A.Self-signed certificates use weaker encryption algorithms
• B.A self-signed certificate provides no third-party verification of the server's identity; an attacker performing a MITM attack can present their own self-signed certificate and users have no way to distinguish the real server from the attacker's interception proxy
• C.Self-signed certificates cannot use TLS 1.3
• D.Self-signed certificates do not encrypt data in transit; HEAD responses include the full representation body, and clients are expected to discard it after reading the headers; TLS for HTTPS is negotiated after the first HTTP request is sent in cleartext, letting the server choose a certificate; PUT is defined as non-idempotent, meaning a retried PUT after a timeout risks creating a second copy of the resource