Firesheep, a day later

http://codebutler.com/firesheep-a-day-later

by cdine • 16 years ago

77 15 16 years ago

mooism23• 16 years ago

> 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.

mooism23• 16 years ago

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.

calloc2• 16 years ago

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.

TheSOB88• 16 years ago

He's just saying that Facebook can deal with it much better than a small shop.

mjw2• 16 years ago

I'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.

jcromartie• 16 years ago

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.

mjw2• 16 years ago

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.

mooism23• 16 years ago

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.

grandalf2• 16 years ago

Would a mixed (http + https) site with cookieless http traffic (from a different domain) be secure? Could something like this be included in the spec?

pornel2• 16 years ago

If you used cookies with HTTP-only and secure flags, then cookies alone should be safe, but the site wouldn't.

Someone could sniff login forms via injected scripts (XSS = game over) and modify page's content via unprotected CSS and images (which aids phishing, clickjacking).

grandalf2• 16 years ago

ahh ok, that's true. Hadn't thought of that. Is there a caching solution that supports https?

Firesheep, a day later

Related Stories