Live data from Hacker News

Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

groups.google.com

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#81

Once Let's Ecrypt [0] launches, I suppose most web developers won't have any more excuses not to use HTTPS. It'll be free, pretty easy and quick time wise, plus it'll give you an SEO boost. Browser vendors are certainly doing the right thing by making http be marked as non-secure, and not implementing unencrypted http/2 and not allowing non-HTTPS access to powerful api are completely reasonable steps to take. [0] htt…

Its two commands for free static https hosting on Firebase

https://www.firebase.com/docs/hosting/command-line-tool.html

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#82

Once Let's Ecrypt [0] launches, I suppose most web developers won't have any more excuses not to use HTTPS. It'll be free, pretty easy and quick time wise, plus it'll give you an SEO boost. Browser vendors are certainly doing the right thing by making http be marked as non-secure, and not implementing unencrypted http/2 and not allowing non-HTTPS access to powerful api are completely reasonable steps to take. [0] htt…

What is the value proposition of a certificate from an automated provider? What is the verification? If someone wants to get a certificate for a domain that has ebay or paypal as part of the domain then spoofs those sites, will the automated provide flag this or are the users going to see the nice lock in their address bar? Why bother and not just allow all self signed certificates?

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Agenda"? What, the nefarious agenda of making things more secure for everyone?

While in this case it could be going a little too far since I see how some of these APIs could be used to gather quite sensitive information, it might be a sort of knee-jerk reaction against the trend of "it's for your security" restrictionism that is becoming very common today; and it's a reaction that I think is long overdue... "more secure for everyone" is the same reason often used to justify mass surveillance.

Not just that.... did you see the recent report about suspicious root CAs installed on Macbooks? Have you heard about the DigiNotar case where Iranian agents infiltrated the CA? Do you know that private companies MITM HTTPS connections to spy on their employees gmail and facebook activities under data loss prevention policy? HTTPS is clear text to nation states because security is ultimately a physical business. All solutions I've heard of for the "bad CA" problem are themselves insecure. So the only thing the forced moed to https is doing is breaking the internet, adding overhead and creating a two tiered security model: nation states can spy but petty criminals can't. It's fake security in the end, and yes it does come with other concerning implications. But you can't stop it. Tim Berners Lee couldn't. He tried. He continues to try. No one will listen.

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#84

Once Let's Ecrypt [0] launches, I suppose most web developers won't have any more excuses not to use HTTPS. It'll be free, pretty easy and quick time wise, plus it'll give you an SEO boost. Browser vendors are certainly doing the right thing by making http be marked as non-secure, and not implementing unencrypted http/2 and not allowing non-HTTPS access to powerful api are completely reasonable steps to take. [0] htt…

What is the value proposition of a certificate from an automated provider? What is the verification? If someone wants to get a certificate for a domain that has ebay or paypal as part of the domain then spoofs those sites, will the automated provide flag this or are the users going to see the nice lock in their address bar? Why bother and not just allow all self signed certificates?

https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the value proposition of a certificate from an automated provider? What is the verification? If someone wants to get a certificate for a domain that has ebay or paypal as part of the domain then spoofs those sites, will the automated provide flag this or are the users going to see the nice lock in their address bar? Why bother and not just allow all self signed certificates?

https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/

Ok, so how does that keep a site like paypall.com (or any example of a common off-by-one-letter domain) from getting a certificate?

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://letsencrypt.org/howitworks/technology/

Ok, so how does that keep a site like paypall.com (or any example of a common off-by-one-letter domain) from getting a certificate?

Nothing currently stops paypall.com getting a certificate and the technology is not meant to do that.

EV-SSL is kind of meant to deal with that if you want to pay the fees.

But this seems more in line with a movement towards HTTPS by default and marking HTTP as insecure.

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#87
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really need to secure Youtube viewing on a public WiFi hotspots ? Unless you want to sell DRM movies, I don't see the need for HTTPS here. Unless you want privacy on a public network. But we're not talking about security anymore. So you're suggesting trading a potential MitM but an official Cloudflare MitM ? :) It is not only about a money cost, it is also about a complexity cost and false sense of security. H…

> 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.

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.

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#88

Once Let's Ecrypt [0] launches, I suppose most web developers won't have any more excuses not to use HTTPS. It'll be free, pretty easy and quick time wise, plus it'll give you an SEO boost. Browser vendors are certainly doing the right thing by making http be marked as non-secure, and not implementing unencrypted http/2 and not allowing non-HTTPS access to powerful api are completely reasonable steps to take. [0] htt…

Until ad networks make a serious effort to enable https on their networks and CDNs, I can't run https on any of my sites. Mixed content security means no http ads and thus no revenue.

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#89
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

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.

Re: Blink - Intent to deprecate: Insecure usage of powerful features

#90
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so how does that keep a site like paypall.com (or any example of a common off-by-one-letter domain) from getting a certificate?

Nothing currently stops paypall.com getting a certificate and the technology is not meant to do that. EV-SSL is kind of meant to deal with that if you want to pay the fees. But this seems more in line with a movement towards HTTPS by default and marking HTTP as insecure.

I'm pretty sure the certificate companies when doing their verification stop obvious attempts at scams.

So, all this is to get an encrypted connection?

Post reply on HN