4 ms·

> 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 bro

> 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.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  > and my "OS" taskbar/menubar, that, is not possible today Please articulate why you do not believe that is possible. > Yes, and not connecting to those site on an open WiFi hotspot is still a good practice. Again, HTTPS or not. Please articulate why you believe that is good practice. Don't say "common sense". State the underlying basis of your belief. And finally, please explain why, even if everything you believe is accurate, it is somehow a negative thing to prevent attacks from being carried out on users who do not share your beliefs and paranoia. Social darwinism? Actually, one more: Even if no one did any of these things on open wifi, they would still be vulnerable to these attacks, since every internet connection is vulnerable, so please explain why protecting people who do share your beliefs is a bad idea. Nope, still got another: I travel for work with some frequency, including internationally. When doing so, frequently my only available option is open wifi. Please explain why my livelihood should be destroyed because you, an admitted non-expert, believe using open wifi is a bad idea? Oh, hey, yet another: Please explain why, even if doing these things were unsafe now, you oppose efforts to make them safe!

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.

nknighthb 12y ago
> and my "OS" taskbar/menubar, that, is not possible today Please articulate why you do not believe that is possible. > Yes, and not connecting to those site on an open WiFi hotspot is still a good practice. Again, HTTPS or not. Please articulate why you believe that is good practice. Don't say "common sense". State the underlying basis of your belief. And finally, please explain why, even if everything you believe is accurate, it is somehow a negative thing to prevent attacks from being carried out on users who do not share your beliefs and paranoia. Social darwinism? Actually, one more: Even if no one did any of these things on open wifi, they would still be vulnerable to these attacks, since every internet connection is vulnerable, so please explain why protecting people who do share your beliefs is a bad idea. Nope, still got another: I travel for work with some frequency, including internationally. When doing so, frequently my only available option is open wifi. Please explain why my livelihood should be destroyed because you, an admitted non-expert, believe using open wifi is a bad idea? Oh, hey, yet another: Please explain why, even if doing these things were unsafe now, you oppose efforts to make them safe!