Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Re: bugzilla bug #383183 comment #52:
>
> So just to confirm, you're saying that there is no difference in
> security between submitting a username/password via HTTP and via HTTPS
> with a self-signed SSL cert?
http is vulnerable to passive attack ("sniffers").
https with self-signed certs is not vulnerable to passive attack.
That is the only essential difference.
Both are vulnerable to active attack.
Both are *trivially* attacked by MITM attackers.
FireFox does offer a way to remember a self-signed cert, similar to ssh.
That is a double-edged sword.
IFF the user actually has some way of verifying that the self-signed cert
he is about to accept bears the public key that really belongs to the
intended server, and not a public key that belongs to an MITM attacker,
then the user has done an equivalent operation to what a CA does, and
thereafter that cert is as trustworthy to the user as a cert from a
trusted CA.
But a user who just blindly accepts a self-signed cert without verifying
its public key with the intended server's owner is subjecting himself to
MITM attacks.
By asking FF to remember the cert, the user ensures that he won't be
reminded again that the cert is not from a trusted issuer. If he has
already verified the cert's key with its rightful owner, then it is good
for him to no longer be reminded. But if he has blindly accepted the
self-signed cert without verification, he has ensured that he will never
again be reminded that he has made himself vulnerable to the MITM attacker.
--
Nelson B
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
