Firesheep, a day later
codebutler.com
Firesheep, a day later
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#2> In the past, an SSL service required a dedicated IP address. This isn’t true any more with the advent of Server Name Indication (RFC 3546) and improvements in TLS.
If any of your users are using Internet Explorer on Windows XP, then this seems to still be true, alas - http://www.alexanderkiel.net/2008/04/22/status-of-tls-sni/
This isn't an issue for the likes of Facebook, of course, but it is a problem for sites small enough to be on shared hosting.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#3> In the past, an SSL service required a dedicated IP address. This isn’t true any more with the advent of Server Name Indication (RFC 3546) and improvements in TLS. If any of your users are using Internet Explorer on Windows XP, then this seems to still be true, alas - http://www.alexanderkiel.net/2008/04/22/status-of-tls-sni/ This isn't an issue for the likes of Facebook, of course, but it is a problem for sites sm…
About 60% of client computers are running Windows XP, according to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-shar...
Clearly they're not all running Internet Explorer, but equally clearly it's far too early to lock out clients that lack SNI.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#4I'd be interested to hear thoughts on HTTP digest auth as an alternative to full end-to-end encryption for avoiding these attacks.
Personally I'm hopeful that Firesheep will be what it takes to persuade browser vendors (and the HTML5 crowd) that real usable support for HTML login forms based on HTTP digest authentication is a necessity.
There are some pretty significant issues involved in rolling out full-on SSL which while not insurmountable do lead one to wonder if a more lightweight solution like HTTP digest auth might be sufficient for most non-security-critical cases.
On this topic http://www.cgisecurity.com/2010/01/weaning-the-web-off-of-se...
is worth a read.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#5I'd be interested to hear thoughts on HTTP digest auth as an alternative to full end-to-end encryption for avoiding these attacks. Personally I'm hopeful that Firesheep will be what it takes to persuade browser vendors (and the HTML5 crowd) that real usable support for HTML login forms based on HTTP digest authentication is a necessity. There are some pretty significant issues involved in rolling out full-on SSL whic…
Definitely. The hardest thing to sell, when it comes to regular HTTP digest auth, is the user interface. People (clients) truly prefer pretty and insecure over ugly and secure.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#6I'd be interested to hear thoughts on HTTP digest auth as an alternative to full end-to-end encryption for avoiding these attacks. Personally I'm hopeful that Firesheep will be what it takes to persuade browser vendors (and the HTML5 crowd) that real usable support for HTML login forms based on HTTP digest authentication is a necessity. There are some pretty significant issues involved in rolling out full-on SSL whic…
Definitely. The hardest thing to sell, when it comes to regular HTTP digest auth, is the user interface. People (clients) truly prefer pretty and insecure over ugly and secure.
For sure. Hence the need for browser vendors to provide hooks - via new HTML5 form attributes, a Javascript API, or ideally both, to enable us to develop our own, usable HTML-based session login and logout forms with HTTP auth.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#7I'd be interested to hear thoughts on HTTP digest auth as an alternative to full end-to-end encryption for avoiding these attacks. Personally I'm hopeful that Firesheep will be what it takes to persuade browser vendors (and the HTML5 crowd) that real usable support for HTML login forms based on HTTP digest authentication is a necessity. There are some pretty significant issues involved in rolling out full-on SSL whic…
1. Even if Facebook used HTTP digest auth for people logging into facebook.com, I don't see how I could use HTTP digest auth for people logging into my website using their Facebook ID. (Also for OpenID, signing in with Twitter, etc.)
2. As a pragmatic matter, it seems more likely that Microsoft would update the various versions of Internet Explorer on Windows XP to support SNI, than that all web browsers (including Internet Explorer on Windows XP) would be updated to support HTTP digest auth with a customisable UI.
Having said that, I'm in favour of web browsers supporting both technologies.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#8> In the past, an SSL service required a dedicated IP address. This isn’t true any more with the advent of Server Name Indication (RFC 3546) and improvements in TLS. If any of your users are using Internet Explorer on Windows XP, then this seems to still be true, alas - http://www.alexanderkiel.net/2008/04/22/status-of-tls-sni/ This isn't an issue for the likes of Facebook, of course, but it is a problem for sites sm…
About 60% of client computers are running Windows XP, according to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-shar... Clearly they're not all running Internet Explorer, but equally clearly it's far too early to lock out clients that lack SNI.
Since all of the browsers on Windows XP use the Windows SChannel API none of them support SNI. That includes the beloved Google Chrome, FireFox, and Safari. (Not sure about Opera on Windows XP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Support
That is unfortunately an issue that only Microsoft can rectify unless developers on the Windows platform want to take the time and effort to re-implement parts of the SChannel API.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
About 60% of client computers are running Windows XP, according to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-shar... Clearly they're not all running Internet Explorer, but equally clearly it's far too early to lock out clients that lack SNI.
Since all of the browsers on Windows XP use the Windows SChannel API none of them support SNI. That includes the beloved Google Chrome, FireFox, and Safari. (Not sure about Opera on Windows XP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Support That is unfortunately an issue that only Microsoft can rectify unless developers on the Windows platform want to take the time and effort to re-implement parts of the…
> none of them support SNI. That includes (..) Google Chrome, FireFox, and Safari
You're wrong about Firefox! I'm writing this from an XP box and I've just tested a SNI site with Firefox 3.6. It works with SNI just fine.
> Not sure about Opera
Opera also works with SNI.
Re: Firesheep, a day later
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since all of the browsers on Windows XP use the Windows SChannel API none of them support SNI. That includes the beloved Google Chrome, FireFox, and Safari. (Not sure about Opera on Windows XP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Support That is unfortunately an issue that only Microsoft can rectify unless developers on the Windows platform want to take the time and effort to re-implement parts of the…
> none of them support SNI. That includes (..) Google Chrome, FireFox, and Safari You're wrong about Firefox! I'm writing this from an XP box and I've just tested a SNI site with Firefox 3.6. It works with SNI just fine. > Not sure about Opera Opera also works with SNI.
My apologies regarding FireFox. I don't use FireFox and when I do it is from a Mac OS X machine.
Either way Internet Explorer doesn't support it and as such it is still a no-go from a usability stand point since XP still has such a large market share.