41–45 of 45 posts
"Hey everyone, go visit this website that's probably serving malware!"
Surely, if the second - linking to wsj isn't known to serve malware.
Further, if you do not have some trust in your browser to go to potentially compromising sites - you need to change browser or stop browsing.
Bad as the deface is, they're making decent looking takeover pages these days. Not too bad that design Take away the greetz and the embarrassment and you're halfway to a snazzy landing page
Reference: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/lizard-squad-cl...
"Hey everyone, go visit this website that's probably serving malware!"
But, you can also use the Web Archive and check every domain yourself within their waterfall chart: http://web.archive.org/web/20150126072317/http://www.malaysi...
Looks like a bunch of static assets delivered by: fonts.googleapis.com, fonts.gstatic.com, pbs.twimg.com, and www.youtube.com. Looks similar to what I saw post-defacement/pre-fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it being an external CDN means that there is no indication that the actual servers they have control of were tampered with. The possibility that HSTS could have saved the day is just as valid. There is no indication that the CDN got these incorrect files with any kind of encryption or signing.
So CDN just works without having the SSL certs?
Obviously if the CDN has cert X then any authentication it may have should use cert Y.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So CDN just works without having the SSL certs?
What? A CDN accessed over TLS needs some kind of cert, sure. I don't see how this connects to whether the CDN pulls off the wrong server. Obviously if the CDN has cert X then any authentication it may have should use cert Y.