Re: Ethernet cable question.
- From: wrat@xxxxxxxxx (the wharf rat)
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:30:29 +0000 (UTC)
In article <#Tu9K7oHJHA.3668@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul Montgumdrop <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is stupid, and I know better. I have developed Web HTTPS site
solutions on the server and on the client end. If it was so easily
breakable as you claim, then a whole lot of transmission of sensitive
data would be getting compromised and eavesdropped on. And it would be
With all due respect, you're making a typical mistake. HTTPS
*CAN* be secure. HTTPS is NOT forced to be secure merely by virtue of
appending an S.
For instance, your browser considers any connection "secured"
by some form of SSL to be secure and makes no distinction bewteen 40 bit
encryption and 256 bit. If the website is accidentally or on purpose
configured to accept 40 or 56 bit you may connect insecurely although
you think you are connecting securely. For a discussion of this problem
see
http://www.verisign.com/static/036094.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEZReuU9dor6or5jZusQH52Z-kLCA
Furthermore, the acceptable ciphers are not all secure. The server
may insist - again without notifying the user - that the conversation use
an insecure RC4 (for instance) cipher.
And when a person is finished with the bank transactions in a HTTPSThat's exactly the situtation that a strong local security
session, goes to another site, it's not an HTTPS site, and there person
gives up sensitive data over the Internet, then that's falls under the
ignorance of the user and is NOT a HTTPS issue on security.
policy is meant to protect you from. Someone else tried to use the idea
that because the bank conversation is encrypted you don't need to encrypt
the link. That's not true, exactly because of the situation you point out.
And for you to say that some bank site may not be set-up correctly or
that the Web site developer(s) who have developed, tested, went through
quality assurance testing to ensure the integrity of the site solution
and the staff did not know how secure the solution is ridiculous,
Pfffft. Are you telling me that people never make mistakes? Or
that insiders never deliberately open holes to exploit for their own
purposes? Or that intruders never modify system configurations? These kinds
of things happen all the time. A typical example: administrator specifies
256 bit but the product isn't licensed for that level and so falls back to
56. The admin won't even notice until the next security audit because it's
not an error and everything looks just fine. (well, she might, if she's
good.)
Great Ghu, even classified systems get compromised. Don't you
think it could happen at a bank?
particularly at banks. What? Do you think people who hold those
positions don't know about the attack vectors and how to prevent them?
To err is human. And you can really foul things up if you're
using a computer. You're saying I should trust these unknown people because
they work at a bank. Talk about silly.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ethernet cable question.
- From: Paul Montgumdrop
- Re: Ethernet cable question.
- References:
- Ethernet cable question.
- From: Alex Clayton
- Re: Ethernet cable question.
- From: Paul Montgumdrop
- Re: Ethernet cable question.
- From: the wharf rat
- Re: Ethernet cable question.
- From: Paul Montgumdrop
- Ethernet cable question.
- Prev by Date: Re: "Program files" role set to wrong folder
- Next by Date: Re: Creating a new key in HK-_Users fails
- Previous by thread: Re: Ethernet cable question.
- Next by thread: Re: Ethernet cable question.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|