4 ms·
> If browsers began accepting all free / self-signed certificates [...] Right now, browsers are accepting any unencrypted old HTTP connection without any warni
by Udo 16y ago
> If browsers began accepting all free / self-signed certificates [...]
Right now, browsers are accepting any unencrypted old HTTP connection without any warning, while non-verified securely encrypted connections are actively prevented. Tech people can circumvent the block, but normal users cannot. Nor do they have any reason to because the warning they are being shown sounds like the end of the world, while any unsecured connection looks perfectly fine to them. This is something that could be done right now to make everybody more secure, at no cost, but it threatens the business model of companies like Verisign.
Nobody is suggesting that browser makers should display the much-sought-after "lock of absolute protection" icon on any random SSL connection, I'd be fine if they reserve that for paid-for-certs. I'm merely suggesting they show free (or even self-signed) certs the same courtesy as basic HTTP, the most permissive protocol of all time, instead of actively preventing users from using encryption.
I agree with you about the threat of "Firesheep FX" and believe Wifi connections should probably all use WPA2, even at coffee shops where internet access is free. The threat of MITM is real, but the attack can be made more difficult using a number of schemes, and it even includes free certs that offer way more protection than any unencrypted link ever could. Yet, we are currently encouraging unencrypted connections while actively blocking encrypted ones.
If HTTPS could have the same UI mechanisms as, say, an SSH connection I'm convinced the online world would be a much safer place.
- nikcub 16y agoWifi connections should probably all use WPA2, even at coffee shops if you just write the password on the wall, it defeats the purpose - everyone who logs in is on the same network again, just like a public network
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- eru 16y agoEveryone being on the same network isn't too much of a problem. They still can't read each others traffic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11i-2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11i-2004 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Access#WPA2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Access#WPA2 Every device negotiates its own keys with the access point.
- hannibalhorn 16y agoVery common misconception, but it's still a problem. Any client with the network password can capture the initial key negotiation, and then decrypt the client's subsequent traffic. You can enter the network password in Wireshark: http://wiki.wireshark.org/HowToDecrypt802.11 http://wiki.wireshark.org/HowToDecrypt802.11 .
- nikcub 16y agoye I should clarify and add that it means you can see the traffic. even if it is switched
- pilif 16y agoif the AP and the gateway are separate devices, couldn't I just ARP-spoof the gateway and get all traffic on the wireless network sent over to me, regardless of encryption?
- kijinbear 16y agoOK, I see what you mean. If you're suggesting that websites protected with untrusted certificates should be treated as if they were plain HTTP sites, then I agree with you. Chrome crosses out the "https" part of the URL if the page contains insecure elements. Something similar might be the right way to treat untrusted certificates.