6 ms·
maybe because it's not a new threat and it's not their responsibility?
by p3on 16y ago
maybe because it's not a new threat and it's not their responsibility?
- Travis 16y agoI think OP was suggesting that it's the responsibility of those companies to warn their users, etc. Not that it was the firesheep dev's responsibility.
- p3on 16y agoexactly, it's MITM attack people have been able to do for at least a decade
- freeall 16y agoThat doesn't really make it less of a security threat. Sites still don't know how to secure it. On my own site we do the same, and have no other answer but end-to-end encryption which we then charge for.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- doron 16y agoI disagree, on a certain level it is new. Few security flaws (i actually cant recall any) made a change from a fairly technical and obscure possibility, into a browser plugin. as the download numbers show, the tool is now accessible in a manner that makes an exploit trivial and require no technical knowledge. I am of the opinion that providers like facebook etc... would do their users a service, by explaining to them the risk of accessing their networks via open wireless networks for instance. Perhaps it is not their responsibility but it might be beneficial for them to help the public understand privacy concerns.
- zecg 16y agoI agree with this. How is it facebook's responsibility if the user's wireless network is unprotected? Of course the companies are silent. It's not their vulnerability and it's nothing new, it's been like that since forever. Encrypting all traffic for them is expensive and breaks functionality. What are they supposed to say, to warn users? Something along the lines of: "Warning, HTTP session hijacking has become REAL USER FRIENDLY recently."