t’s about assurance. It’s about establishing a degree of trust in a site’s legitimacy that’s sufficient for you to confidently transmit and receive data with the knowledge that it’s reaching its intended destination without being intercepted or manipulated in the process. Last week I wrote a (slightly) tongue-in-cheek post about the Who’s who of bad password practices. I was critical of a number of sites not implementing SSL as no indication of it was present in the browser. “But wait!” some commenters shouted, “you can still post to HTTPS and the data will be encrypted” they yelled, “stop propagating fear and misunderstanding”, they warned. I thought carefully about these responses and made a little update at the end of the post but the story of posting data from HTTP to HTTPS is worth more than just a footnote. The real misunderstanding in this story is believing that just because the credentials are encrypted in transit, SSL has been properly implemented. Let’s took a good look at what’s wrong with that belief and why there’s more to SSL than just encryption. Assumed assurance without positive feedback
Let’s start with just the encryption piece and take a look at a few familiar sites. Which of the following do you think will protect your credentials over the wire: Read more: Troy Hunt's Blog
Let’s start with just the encryption piece and take a look at a few familiar sites. Which of the following do you think will protect your credentials over the wire: Read more: Troy Hunt's Blog
0 comments:
Post a Comment