Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 11 2015, @04:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the failure-to-communicate dept.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/12/sha1-sunset-will-block-millions-from-encrypted-net-facebook-warns/

SHA1 certificates for secure SSL/TLS communications are deprecated due to known computational vulnerabilities. To ensure secure communications, a forced deprecation sounds reasonable (i.e. refuse to connect to these). That has the side effect that it will lock out many users who are unable to use stronger hashes such as SHA256. However, if a fallback to SHA1 is provided (as Facebook is proposing), everyone will be vulnerable to SHA1 downgrade man-in-the-middle attacks.

What to do?


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This discussion has been archived.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 edIII on Friday December 11 2015, @08:44PM

    by edIII (791) on Friday December 11 2015, @08:44PM (#275140)

    If the hackers wanted to they would most likely hack Target directly just like they did before. And it would still probably be easier than cracking SHA1.

    In what world is attacking the HVAC system to access internal networks a direct attack? They literally went through the air conditioner to attack Target. SHA1 probably never even applied, but I'm not aware of what exploit they used against it.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:02PM (#275477)
    In a world where attacking a bank via its HVAC system is like attacking a bank directly and attacking a bank's customer's connections to the bank is not attacking the bank directly.

    You're basically supporting my point even though you can't see it. Especially with your "SHA1 probably never even applied," too. Interesting you could see that but not realize what it means in the big picture.