Re: extension for Firefox to force HTTPS always?

[<full-disclosure () hushmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

*wow* you win an *award* for most *stars* used in an *email* to
demonstrate your *mental* *superiority* and the *dude* was not even
talking about pentesting he was talking about *browsing teh
interweb* at net cafes.

*you* could have asked for *clarifications* on what he was trying
to *accomplish* and instead you chose to *try* becoming a
*trendsetter* by using lots of *** in your *email* and still
managed to be *completely* offtopic *and* continue to be *useless*.
 *at least* *gobbles* wants in your pants.

http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2007-
October/066616.html



On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:14:26 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:25:46 EDT, full-disclosure () hushmail com
> said:
>
> > No idea you got an idea big guy?
>
> No, merely pointing out a under-specification of the problem.
> There's any
> number of ways that it *could* be set up - the question is what
> the *desired*
> behavior is.  Blindly rewriting everything to https: is *doable*,
> but results
> in some ugly corner cases.  Now, Kristian's *original* request was
> "you don't
> want to leak unencrypted data".  The reasonable response is - is
> it OK to leak
> unencrypted, *unimportant* data (such as hitting www.cnn.com to
> check the news
> while you take a short break)?  In fact, a *clever* pen tester may
> in fact
> *want* to have at least *some* innocuous port 80 traffic, just so
> they don't
> stand out because they're *only* doing port 443 traffic....
>
> (And the *really* sneaky pen tester will maintain a pseudo-random
> stream of
> hits to CNN and google and the like, and tunnel their *important*
> data out via
> SSL to some site with a pr0n-for-pay-ish name like www.llamas-r-
> hot.com,
> because you *expect* to see that sort of traffic distrbution... ;)
>
> So while "do everything over SSL" may sound like a good first cut
> (and in fact
> *is* a good start), the overall question is "what data do you want
> to conceal,
> and from whom, exactly?"
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:45:12 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
> wrote:
> > > Same problem still - you proxy, you rewrite it to port 443 -
> and
> > > the destination
> > > doesn't *have* anything at port 443. What should your Apache
> do?
>
> And anybody who has been doing security for more than a week or so
> *knows* that
> failure to deal with corner cases like "but there's nothing
> *listening* on
> port 443" is a *major* source of bugs and places to find your 0-
> days.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 2.5

wpwEAQECAAYFAkcRCGEACgkQ+dWaEhErNvTnRwP/XmLeKQ5ZrkbI8ih1BUvYS67JOuf9
t7CugsT7xZA1VbIvhs5YKiGnzp7SS2upqE1IzuoAMeVk6ZpqghMvZDol5+SCANrMaJCW
cI66ybV7j5TtUTc1ESb1Hn85cHS0/A5epZ9qi9TxExyFQtKKRgSOlRy5y7QIB9xTIhS7
BMlQD0A=
=oOP6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/