3 ms·
Captive portals need to die not because of any technical reason - they have the same problem as the "UAC" pop-up showing up far-too-frequently: it teaches peopl
by pdkl95 12y ago
Captive portals need to die not because of any technical reason - they have the same problem as the "UAC" pop-up showing up far-too-frequently: it teaches people to ignore what should be a serious security warning. A SSL certificate suddenly changing to a strange new signing authority is the kind of problem that should be a serious warning. By de facto teaching that it is ever valid to ignore important security measures, captive portals badly hurt the real education that needs to happen about how to handle computer security.
Worse, this is another example of where laziness and convenience tend to promote these bad habits. Never-mind the average user - way too many technical people[1] fall into these bad habits - including programmers and sysadmins that really should know better. This isn't just WWW/HTTPS - did you always use a VPN? With a properly secure login that you know does not involve a MitM?
[1] I mean in the general, statistical sense - any resemblance to people posing in this thread is an unintended coincidence.
> never start blocking VPN
That's easy - you just push PKI (alreadyd used in many places) and make up some excuse why this new version is needed for "airplane security". We live in an age where airlines (w/ the TSA/.gov) make a big deal about confiscating water bottles and regularly steal from luggage; do you really expect "business customers" to get angry over VPNs while allowing the past decade of security theater?
- mikecb 12y agoMaybe certificate pinning needs to include being able to forbid clicking through a warning. WiFi services would change their methods fast if they got sudden drop in users.