Is performing login with https but then everything in http all a bit pointless?

Question

So you've performed the login using https to prevent man in the middle attacks and make sure your password isn't sent in the clear. Good call. But many sites then switch back to http for the rest of the session.

Once you're exchanging everything in the clear can't a man in the middle begin hijacking your session again? Okay, so they don't have your password but they don't need it! For as long as you stay logged in the man in the middle can just hijack your session and send whatever requests they want. Can't they?

What measures are put in place to prevent this? Or is it not actually a problem because of something I have overlooked? Or, is this just an acceptable risk to take?

Answer 1

It depends on what you mean by pointless. :) You are correct that in a standard setup, where you're creating a session over HTTPS, and then reverting to HTTP but passing a session cookie (say) around with your requests, that the theoretical "guy in the coffee shop" can in fact see your data and/or take actions on your behalf.

The downside of using all-SSL (HTTPS) is traditionally that it is expensive from a server-side computation standpoint as well as incurring computation the client side. (Dollars and servers for the site, slower-loading pages for you.)

Therefore running most of a site in the clear has traditionally been considered an "acceptable risk" for most uses of the web.

The two risks you face are having your data be visible to others, and having others be able to act as you (by using your cookies, which they can steal). When designing a new site, you should think about the relative risks of both of these things. Notice that financial institutions will always serve all of their pages over HTTPS because the risk is not acceptable-- every page contains sensitive data, and even eavesdropping is bad. Gmail provides an opt-in option to get HTTPS for all sessions, too. (Facebook doesn't, though, nor does e.g. Yahoo! Mail).

You've probably noticed that many sites that run primarily over HTTP will protect critical settings changes with password re-authentication. This is one reason why they do this: even if the guy in the coffee shop can read your Facebook posts going by, he can't change your password and lock you out without knowing your current password.

Philosophically, my guess is that over time an increasing number of services with private user data will be pressured to move to (or offer) all-HTTPS as people become aware of the risks and as use of public Wifi networks increases.

Answer 2

Sites which care so little about security as to not use SSL consistently are likely to be insecure in multiple ways. For example, they probably have the login form itself delivered on an unencrypted page. The attacker can simply change the https form post destination to an unencrypted on and he now has your password.

Once you're exchanging everything in the clear can't a man in the middle begin hijacking your session again?

Yes.

It's like locking the front door of a house without exterior walls.

even if the guy in the coffee shop can read your Facebook posts going by, he can't change your password and lock you out without knowing your current password

Can he take over your session cookie? Can he change your email address? Can he request a password reset email? Can he make you say dumb stuff in public forums? Probably.

He certainly can replace every https link on every page with http. Google for "SSLStrip". More than likely, the victim is never going to end up on an https page again. So when the victim clicks on the "change my password" link, the attacker gets the old (and new) passwords in clear text.

• Marsh