SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The operator of a website that accepts subscriber logins only over unencrypted HTTP pages has taken to Mozilla's Bugzilla bug-reporting service to complain that the Firefox browser is warning that the page isn't suitable for the transmission of passwords.
"Your notice of insecure password and/or log-in automatically appearing on the log-in for my website, Oil and Gas International, is not wanted and was put there without our permission," a person with the user name dgeorge wrote here (the link was made private shortly after this post went live). "Please remove it immediately. We have our own security system, and it has never been breached in more than 15 years. Your notice is causing concern by our subscribers and is detrimental to our business."
Around the same time this post was going live, participants of this Reddit thread claimed to hack the site using what's known as a SQL injection exploit. Multiple people claimed that passwords were stored in plaintext rather than the standard practice of using cryptographic hashes. A few minutes after the insecurity first came up in the online discussion, a user reported the database was deleted. Ars has contacted the site operator for comment on the claims, but currently Ars can't confirm them. The site, http://www.oilandgasinternational.com, was displaying content as it did earlier at the time this post was being updated.
As a member of the Mozilla developer team pointed out in reply to the complaint, both Firefox and Chrome routinely issue warnings whenever users encounter a login page that's not protected by HTTPS encryption. The warnings became standard earlier this year.
The site in question appears to be completely offline at this time.
Source: ArsTechnica
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:58PM
CA signed local cert is useless because a mitm is as easy as self-signed. Many people would be able to buy a "gmail.com" cert, for example. Even though all those certs are different they point to the exact same domain. Just as secure as self-signed only more misleading. If you have air-gapped machines and you still want ssl then just install the self-signed certificate in the client machines. You obviously would only have a limited number because the ssl server is private.
You say it's okay for an unknown cert to be presented to you for a local domain. That's like, your opinion, man : ) But you could easily mitm anyone on a private network with your idea. You could self-sign and resolve gmail.com to a local machine. Nobody on the network would get any warning. That's bad.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.