3 ms·

" [..] we've known it's coming for quite a while now [..]" Who is "we" ? A lot of people are about to start calling random tech support numbers asking them why

" [..] we've known it's coming for quite a while now [..]" Who is "we" ? A lot of people are about to start calling random tech support numbers asking them why their internet is not secure. However, I think the UI changes coming in are a vastly improved solution to mitm than the cheap hack that is HSTS. I'm also about 90% sure that in two years, most people will have at least one custom CA cert from a job, isp, or other as-yet-undetermined need to inspect content. I also expect it to become commonplace to ignore certificate errors, as the number of new HTTPS sites also increases the amount of faulty TLS setup. And what's really annoying is that HTTPS doesn't really affect user security much. It mainly just affects privacy. Most people are not hacked by a man in the middle. They're hacked by a person accessing a database, or running an authentic looking website, or exploiting a bug. So while a lot of headaches will be caused by adopting HTTPS everywhere, people won't necessarily be any safer.

creatonez 9y ago
> A lot of people are about to start calling random tech support numbers asking them why their internet is not secure Good. More pressure on all sorts of companies to add TLS to their ancient systems.
MrManatee 9y ago
> And what's really annoying is that HTTPS doesn't really affect user security much. It mainly just affects privacy. Most people are not hacked by a man in the middle. They're hacked by a person accessing a database, or running an authentic looking website, or exploiting a bug. So while a lot of headaches will be caused by adopting HTTPS everywhere, people won't necessarily be any safer. Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like you're criticizing HTTPS for its success. People only rarely get hacked using man-in-the-middle attacks, because popular sites are already using HTTPS. If they didn't, I'm sure they would be MITM-hacked all the time.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  MITM is a lot more work for a lot less payoff. Say you found a small ISP that allows DNS cache poisoning. Once you succeed you get X users over a day or two. It's still a fraction of users of a small ISP. With a botnet, they can collect hundreds of thousands to millions of users, and all they have to do is own one site. Or they can send spam all day and not have to own anything. Of course MITM is a concern, it's just not the biggest concern, IMO.
  - MrManatee 9y ago
    Ah, I wasn't really thinking about DNS cache poisoning. I was thinking about someone going to a public place (a school, a cafe, an airport), setting up a deceptively named Wi-Fi hotspot on their smartphone, and intercepting all non-HTTPS traffic that's going through. Maybe this is not a lucrative opportunity for someone who also has the skills to gather a botnet that consists of millions of computers. But this attack requires minimal skills. If Gmail didn't use HTTPS, there would be an easy-to-use Gmail hacking app. If Facebook didn't use HTTPS, there would be an easy-to-use Facebook hacking app. The risk of getting caught is small. And by going to the right place, there's a reasonable chance of targeting a particular person, which many would find appealing. I think that the only reason attacks like this aren't more common is that most of the high-value attack targets are already using HTTPS.
  - AlfeG 9y ago
    I miss those days when sitting in a cafe with rooted android phone, I we're able to mess up with peoples Facebook and VK accounts by sniffing traffik.

creatonez 9y ago

> A lot of people are about to start calling random tech support numbers asking them why their internet is not secure Good. More pressure on all sorts of companies to add TLS to their ancient systems.

MrManatee 9y ago

> And what's really annoying is that HTTPS doesn't really affect user security much. It mainly just affects privacy. Most people are not hacked by a man in the middle. They're hacked by a person accessing a database, or running an authentic looking website, or exploiting a bug. So while a lot of headaches will be caused by adopting HTTPS everywhere, people won't necessarily be any safer. Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like you're criticizing HTTPS for its success. People only rarely get hacked using man-in-the-middle attacks, because popular sites are already using HTTPS. If they didn't, I'm sure they would be MITM-hacked all the time.

peterwwillis 9y ago
MITM is a lot more work for a lot less payoff. Say you found a small ISP that allows DNS cache poisoning. Once you succeed you get X users over a day or two. It's still a fraction of users of a small ISP. With a botnet, they can collect hundreds of thousands to millions of users, and all they have to do is own one site. Or they can send spam all day and not have to own anything. Of course MITM is a concern, it's just not the biggest concern, IMO.
- MrManatee 9y ago
  Ah, I wasn't really thinking about DNS cache poisoning. I was thinking about someone going to a public place (a school, a cafe, an airport), setting up a deceptively named Wi-Fi hotspot on their smartphone, and intercepting all non-HTTPS traffic that's going through. Maybe this is not a lucrative opportunity for someone who also has the skills to gather a botnet that consists of millions of computers. But this attack requires minimal skills. If Gmail didn't use HTTPS, there would be an easy-to-use Gmail hacking app. If Facebook didn't use HTTPS, there would be an easy-to-use Facebook hacking app. The risk of getting caught is small. And by going to the right place, there's a reasonable chance of targeting a particular person, which many would find appealing. I think that the only reason attacks like this aren't more common is that most of the high-value attack targets are already using HTTPS.
- AlfeG 9y ago
  I miss those days when sitting in a cafe with rooted android phone, I we're able to mess up with peoples Facebook and VK accounts by sniffing traffik.