Re:Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server com...
by mr_mitm on Saturday March 30, 2024 @10:45AM
(#39875373)
No, because the phisher will get a token that is designated for, say, mircos0ft.com which microsoft.com will not accept. It is signed with the user's private key and the attacker cannot forge a signature without it.
Re:Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server com...
by RaisingSpear on Sunday March 31, 2024 @06:25AM
(#39882981)
I think we're talking past each other a bit here.
If I were trying to phish someone, I wouldn't attack the public key crypto part, so how domains come into play during authentication doesn't matter. I'd just grab the "unencrypted" session token at the end of the exchange.
Even if you somehow protected the session token (sounds dubious), there's still plenty a phisher could do, since it has full MITM capability.
Re:Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server com...
by account42 on Thursday April 04, 2024 @05:05AM
(#39928080)
A password manager is also not going to fill in the password on mircos0ft.com so is perfectly safe in this scenario. You need a MitM-style attack or a full on client compromise in both cases, which are vulnerable to session cookie exfiltration or just remote control of your session no matter the authentication method.
Sure, you can probably come up with some non-HTTPS scheme that can address this, but I don't see any site actually doing this, so you're back to the unrealistic scenario.