3 ms·

> Do you really need to secure Youtube viewing on a public WiFi hotspots ? This suggests you did not, in fact, see the problem. The attacker in this scenario i

> Do you really need to secure Youtube viewing on a public WiFi hotspots ? This suggests you did not, in fact, see the problem. The attacker in this scenario is not limited to replacing YouTube videos. They can make anything they want appear on the user's screen, including things like a Google login page, or even a bank login page.

ldng 12y ago
You're probably right, I am not a security expert and might not be seeing the whole picture. You log into your bank website connected to an open WiFi hotspot ? I never would do that. I think there is a point where you have to apply common sense. I do not care about the downvote, my opinion is what it is and I maintain my position. As I see it (me not been a field expert), HTTPS Everywhere will not save the world. You will still have people connecting to the wrongly spelled site (HTTPS or not). Some will even have a false sense of security which would be counter-productive. I access my through HTTPS explicitly typing the URL. My bank ask confirmation out of band for every dangerous action (by SMS). IMHO, one should be educated to take necessary precautions. In Europe, banks have to cover frauds, the positive side effect is that some banks started to educated user on security (it's cheaper !). I don't know how it is in the rest of the world. Just to be clear, I am not against HTTPS where it makes sense. I am against HTTPS everywhere as the only security measure. Because, that's what it will come to, "We have HTTPS so we're good, security checkbox ticked". That is not, IMHO, not a good way of thinking about security. I guess my point is HTTPS everywhere is not the solution and should rather/also educated better/more on the risks of Internet. That said, I wouldn't mind being pointed at a screencast/viedo (on youtube ;-)) showing how the scenario you refer to would unfold.
- organsnyder 12y ago
  HTTPS is not a panacea. However, it does provide security advantages over HTTP, even when the communication itself does not have particularly sensitive content. While not impenetrable, HTTPS does provide a reasonable assurance (or at least a higher hurdle for an attacker) that the server is actually officially representing a particular domain. Of course there are still issues. The certification process has plenty of flaws (such as the fact that an attack on a single one of the multitude trusted in most browsers is just as good as attacking all of them), and there are still other vectors (such as the mistyped URL example you provide). However, HTTPS still provides a clear—and increasingly low-cost—advantage over HTTP.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  > You log into your bank website connected to an open WiFi hotspot ? I never would do that. Many people do that, and it's quite safe to do so with a modern browser. Were it not, it would not be safe to do so in any context, because man-in-the-middle attacks are possible on any connection, just extra easy on wifi. > I think there is a point where you have to apply common sense. As you are demonstrating quite well here, "common" sense is not good sense. It is stopping you from doing things which are safe, and making you advocate for things which are unsafe. > I access my through HTTPS explicitly typing the URL. You would be typing the URL into the equivalent of a remote desktop session. That is what you're not understanding. > My bank ask confirmation out of band for every dangerous action (by SMS). 1) Most banks do not do that. 2) SMS is not a secure channel. 3) Banks are not the only target (again, google/gmail accounts are another good example). 4) Even if they could not transfer funds, they would now have a great deal of information about your finances right on their screen. > In Europe, banks have to cover frauds They mostly do in the US, too. This makes consumers less likely to care about security. > I am against HTTPS everywhere as the only security measure. No one has advocated that. If you think they have, you have become very confused.
  - ldng 12y ago
    > As you are demonstrating quite well here, "common" sense is not good sense. It is stopping you from doing things which are safe, and making you advocate for things which are unsafe. Now you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not saying to not use HTTPS when it is needed. I am saying it is not enough. That you argue that HTTPS is mandatory because you want to do your banking on open wifi hotspot baffles me. You should not be doing banking on open WiFi hotspot. PERIOD. I also say putting HTTPS everywhere does not help as much as you think. I am _not_ saying HTTPS is a bad thing. HTTPS is not a substitute for caution. > You would be typing the URL into the equivalent of a remote desktop session. That is what you're not understanding. For that to happen the phishing server would have to draw a browser shell (ok, feasable), my list of tabs (still doable) and my "OS" taskbar/menubar, that, is not possible today. I would even argue it would be harder to mimic the 'outsides' of the browser then to present a fake a website. Website change all the time and people don't pay as much attention. Robbers prefer easy targets. I'm not saying there are not such phising sites but I have yet to see one crafted with such attention to detail (which I think is not possible anyway). Most of those I have seen are not very elaborated. And it does not matter. They feel/look secure enough. HTTPS or not. >> My bank ask confirmation out of band for every dangerous action (by SMS). > 1) Most banks do not do that. > 2) SMS is not a secure channel. SMS is not a secured channel. True. But it is a _different_ channel and that is the point. Most bank dont do that but they should. > 3) Banks are not the only target (again, google/gmail accounts are another good example). Yes, and not connecting to those site on an open WiFi hotspot is still a good practice. Again, HTTPS or not.

ldng 12y ago

You're probably right, I am not a security expert and might not be seeing the whole picture. You log into your bank website connected to an open WiFi hotspot ? I never would do that. I think there is a point where you have to apply common sense. I do not care about the downvote, my opinion is what it is and I maintain my position. As I see it (me not been a field expert), HTTPS Everywhere will not save the world. You will still have people connecting to the wrongly spelled site (HTTPS or not). Some will even have a false sense of security which would be counter-productive. I access my through HTTPS explicitly typing the URL. My bank ask confirmation out of band for every dangerous action (by SMS). IMHO, one should be educated to take necessary precautions. In Europe, banks have to cover frauds, the positive side effect is that some banks started to educated user on security (it's cheaper !). I don't know how it is in the rest of the world. Just to be clear, I am not against HTTPS where it makes sense. I am against HTTPS everywhere as the only security measure. Because, that's what it will come to, "We have HTTPS so we're good, security checkbox ticked". That is not, IMHO, not a good way of thinking about security. I guess my point is HTTPS everywhere is not the solution and should rather/also educated better/more on the risks of Internet. That said, I wouldn't mind being pointed at a screencast/viedo (on youtube ;-)) showing how the scenario you refer to would unfold.

organsnyder 12y ago
HTTPS is not a panacea. However, it does provide security advantages over HTTP, even when the communication itself does not have particularly sensitive content. While not impenetrable, HTTPS does provide a reasonable assurance (or at least a higher hurdle for an attacker) that the server is actually officially representing a particular domain. Of course there are still issues. The certification process has plenty of flaws (such as the fact that an attack on a single one of the multitude trusted in most browsers is just as good as attacking all of them), and there are still other vectors (such as the mistyped URL example you provide). However, HTTPS still provides a clear—and increasingly low-cost—advantage over HTTP.
nknighthb 12y ago
> You log into your bank website connected to an open WiFi hotspot ? I never would do that. Many people do that, and it's quite safe to do so with a modern browser. Were it not, it would not be safe to do so in any context, because man-in-the-middle attacks are possible on any connection, just extra easy on wifi. > I think there is a point where you have to apply common sense. As you are demonstrating quite well here, "common" sense is not good sense. It is stopping you from doing things which are safe, and making you advocate for things which are unsafe. > I access my through HTTPS explicitly typing the URL. You would be typing the URL into the equivalent of a remote desktop session. That is what you're not understanding. > My bank ask confirmation out of band for every dangerous action (by SMS). 1) Most banks do not do that. 2) SMS is not a secure channel. 3) Banks are not the only target (again, google/gmail accounts are another good example). 4) Even if they could not transfer funds, they would now have a great deal of information about your finances right on their screen. > In Europe, banks have to cover frauds They mostly do in the US, too. This makes consumers less likely to care about security. > I am against HTTPS everywhere as the only security measure. No one has advocated that. If you think they have, you have become very confused.
- ldng 12y ago
  > As you are demonstrating quite well here, "common" sense is not good sense. It is stopping you from doing things which are safe, and making you advocate for things which are unsafe. Now you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not saying to not use HTTPS when it is needed. I am saying it is not enough. That you argue that HTTPS is mandatory because you want to do your banking on open wifi hotspot baffles me. You should not be doing banking on open WiFi hotspot. PERIOD. I also say putting HTTPS everywhere does not help as much as you think. I am _not_ saying HTTPS is a bad thing. HTTPS is not a substitute for caution. > You would be typing the URL into the equivalent of a remote desktop session. That is what you're not understanding. For that to happen the phishing server would have to draw a browser shell (ok, feasable), my list of tabs (still doable) and my "OS" taskbar/menubar, that, is not possible today. I would even argue it would be harder to mimic the 'outsides' of the browser then to present a fake a website. Website change all the time and people don't pay as much attention. Robbers prefer easy targets. I'm not saying there are not such phising sites but I have yet to see one crafted with such attention to detail (which I think is not possible anyway). Most of those I have seen are not very elaborated. And it does not matter. They feel/look secure enough. HTTPS or not. >> My bank ask confirmation out of band for every dangerous action (by SMS). > 1) Most banks do not do that. > 2) SMS is not a secure channel. SMS is not a secured channel. True. But it is a _different_ channel and that is the point. Most bank dont do that but they should. > 3) Banks are not the only target (again, google/gmail accounts are another good example). Yes, and not connecting to those site on an open WiFi hotspot is still a good practice. Again, HTTPS or not.