Re: FD / lists.grok.org - bad SSL cert

[chort <chort0 () gmail com>]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:25:58 PST, Tim said:
> > Uh, no, actually CAs provide some weak assurance that the certificate is
> > the real one and associated with that server.  A self-signed one
> > provides none.  If you can't, in some way, authenticate the certificate
> > then SSL is not any better than sending data plain text.
>
> It's *slightly* better, in that it guards against passive sniffing attacks
> on the data in transit. You're right that it doesn't guard against an
> active MITM attack.

The prevailing use of self-signed certs on the Internet basically
destroys the usefulness of HTTPS, since it trains users to simply
click "add exception" and ignore the scary warnings "because then I
get the lock icon, which means I'm safe!"

The browser security model should be changed to visually differentiate
between "encrypted" and "authenticated", but that would require
massive re-engineering of browser software, and lengthy re-education
of lusers.

Given the option between no HTTPS and HTTPS via self-signed cert, you
should choose the former if you're running a public website.  If the
connections really do need to be protected, stop being so effing
stingy and cough up the $70 for a certificate signed by a CA that is
in the default trusted bundle of major browsers.

-- 
chort

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