5 ms·
> It's been 17 years since 2000. Whatever security hole you may have used (if any) has long since been patched. The weak cyphers used in some SSL versions which
by laumars 9y ago
> It's been 17 years since 2000. Whatever security hole you may have used (if any) has long since been patched. The weak cyphers used in some SSL versions which you may have depended on are mostly gone (certainly from high profile targets).
I very much doubt he was even doing anything that clever. Since it was a corporate network he probably just had their corporate CA certificate already built as part of the company machine images / build scripts. He possibly might not even have been aware this was happening if the IT department was large enough that different coworkers managed the desktops from himself.
The "I can't disclose much" argument on a 2 decade old hack is effectively just saying "I can't remember the details" or "I wasn't directly involved in setting up the proxy". Either way, while much has changed in the last 17 years, the practice of some businesses installing their own CA certificates on company assets has been a fairly standard way for corporate proxies to intercept HTTPS traffic. And a great deal less trouble than relying on SSL vulnerabilities since you already own and deploy the destination hardware+software anyway.
- pjmlp 9y agoAnyone can easily find me on the net and I don't need to have fun speaking with lawyers. Believe me or not, I don't care.
- laumars 9y agoI don't really understand what lawyers have to do with the discussion but I certainly do believe you that you had an in-house proxy that did MITM HTTPS traffic. Lots of businesses do. The problem is you said "let me tell you it is quite easy to MITM by any company owning part of the connection" using that as your example. While your anecdote may be true, the statement it is trying to support simply isn't true and neither was your description of how SSL works (eg the proxy server being able to disable the client libraries SSL checks). So it's not that I don't believe your anecdote - I'm sure that did happen in some form or other - but the nature of the exploit either isn't how you described or is so old and long since patched that it hasn't been exploitable in more than a decade thus isn't relevant to the statement you were trying to support.