News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Firesheep, Week+ later by p3on on Tuesday November 02, 2010 @06:18PM (#1862645)
maybe because it's not a new threat and it's not their responsibility?
Re:Firesheep, Week+ later by Travis on Tuesday November 02, 2010 @06:51PM (#1862766)
I think OP was suggesting that it's the responsibility of those companies to warn their users, etc. Not that it was the firesheep dev's responsibility.
Re:Firesheep, Week+ later by p3on on Tuesday November 02, 2010 @07:00PM (#1862797)
exactly, it's MITM attack people have been able to do for at least a decade
Re:Firesheep, Week+ later by freeall on Tuesday November 02, 2010 @08:28PM (#1863039)
That doesn't really make it less of a security threat. Sites still don't know how to secure it. On my own site we do the same, and have no other answer but end-to-end encryption which we then charge for.
Re:Firesheep, Week+ later by zecg on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @07:02AM (#1864404)
I agree with this. How is it facebook's responsibility if the user's wireless network is unprotected? Of course the companies are silent. It's not their vulnerability and it's nothing new, it's been like that since forever. Encrypting all traffic for them is expensive and breaks functionality. What are they supposed to say, to warn users? Something along the lines of: "Warning, HTTP session hijacking has become REAL USER FRIENDLY recently."