Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
As of today, Google begins shipping Chrome 68 which flags all sites served over the HTTP scheme as being "not secure". This is because the connection is, well, not secure so it seems like a fairly reasonable thing to say! We've known this has been coming for a long time now both through observing the changes in the industry and Google specifically saying "this is coming". Yet somehow, we've arrived at today with a sizable chunk of the web still serving traffic insecurely:
The majority of the Internet’s top 1M most popular sites will show up as “Not Secure” in @GoogleChrome starting July 24th. Make sure your site redirects to #HTTPS, so you don’t have the same problem. @Cloudflare makes it easy! #SecureOnChrome https://t.co/G2a0gi2aM8 pic.twitter.com/r2HWkfRofW
— Cloudflare (@Cloudflare) July 23, 2018
Who are these people?! After all the advanced warnings combined with all we know to be bad about serving even static sites over HTTP, what sort of sites are left that are neglecting such a fundamental security and privacy basic? I wanted to find out which is why today, in conjunction with Scott Helme, we're launching Why No HTTPS? You can find it over at WhyNoHTTPS.com (served over HTTPS, of course), and it's a who's who of the world's biggest websites not redirecting insecure traffic to the secure scheme:
The article continues with a list of "The World's Most Popular Websites Loaded Insecurely", tools and techniques used to gather the data, different responses based on the version of curl, differences accessing the bare domain name versus with the "www." prefix, and asks for any corrections. One can also access the aforementioned website set up specifically for tracking these results: https://whynohttps.com/.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:48PM (2 children)
An attacker on a public hotspot in a coffee shop controls "the reserved internal ips" on that network. If you have some reliable way of distinguishing a private home WLAN from a coffee shop WLAN, I'd like to hear about it.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday July 25 2018, @05:58PM (1 child)
If you can come up with a viable attack against http://192.168.x.x, [168.x.x,] http://10.x.x.x, [x.x.x,] etc. addresses that would actually work in the real world, lets hear it. If they allowed anything that resolved to a 192.168.0.0/16 THAT might have possibilities, but since a random WiFi controls DNS and can trap any unencrypted traffic they already have a lot of ways to attack.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:15AM
Easy. You log onto someone else's wi-fi. They set up their DNS so ebay.com or facebook.com or soylentnew.org or whatever to point to a server they control with a 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x address. Granted, if you were paying attention you might notice that it's not https, but if you don't and put in your username and password then you've been pwned.
I agree though that in the case where it's my own network and I don't need to worry about an attack like that, it's a pain in the ass.