Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the bad-sysadmin,-no-biscuit dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:36AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:36AM (#483161) Homepage Journal

    That only works if your service is one of a small handful of common services that listens on the standard ports...

    In fact, no. You don't even have to have a working service at all to get a cert. You only need access to run a script on the box the cert is for.

    How would I use LetsEncrypt for the SSL cert on an IRC server listening on a non-standard port (there are no standard ports for an SSL IRC connection) when my DNS host provides no API for automated access to add/modify a TXT record?

    You seem to think the port of the service matters. It does not. The certbot script, for instance, will run its own tiny web daemon as necessary during installation/renewal if you don't have a web server already running on the box. The retrieved cert doesn't give a happy damn what service it is for.

    As for adding records to DNS, it may be desirable but it is absolutely not necessary to get an IRC server up and running with a valid and verifiable cert.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2