[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4415E244.1010401@snosoft.com>
Date: Mon Mar 13 21:21:19 2006
From: simon at snosoft.com (Simon Smith)
Subject: HTTP AUTH BASIC monowall.
Ok,
That or the auth mechanism does need to be changed.
Jeremy Bishop wrote:
> On Monday 13 March 2006 12:37, you wrote:
>
>> List,
>> SSL is not a fix for the problem, SSL is just a way of evading
>> the issue or hiding the hole. I can bypass SSL with a man in the
>> middle attack (which I've already done several times). Once I bypass
>>
>
> I'm assuming that this is using unsigned or otherwise invalid
> certificates, and relying on user ignorance or apathy to succeed.
>
>
>> What is the solution to this problem? Is there a solution that
>> does not require a different auth type?
>>
>
> SSL. (Done correctly.)
>
> Any "solution" is likely to rely on public-key crypto and as such will
> require a similar mechanism for verifying identity. If sufficiently
> widespread, apathy and ignorance will render it vulnerable to the exact
> same problems.
>
> I suggest "password-authenticated key agreement" as a starting point for
> research outside the traditional public-key methods. (Although, as far
> as I can tell, it would require the "password" to be accessible to the
> server so that the session can be set up. IOW, you get around the
> problems of trusting a cert, but you're back to storing passwords in
> plaintext.)
>
> Jeremy
>
>
--
Regards,
Adriel T. Desautels
Harvard Security Group
http://www.harvardsecuritygroup.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists