What exactly is the situation we're discussing in this thread? I
believe it to be sites that present a login form without using SSL, but
then encrypt everything thereafter (including the actual login form
data). In this context, it's hard to believe that using SSL to protect
the login page itself is so "expensive" as to outweigh the advantages of
using it.
1) SSL _can_ protect users from phishing and pharming, although I think
everybody agrees it won't it most cases. If your users fall victim to
this type of attack and you didn't at least offer the ability to
validate the login page using an SSL certificate...could you be liable?
2) The "padlock" is a well understood concept to many Internet users.
I'm not so sure these same people understand how their information is
being protected when the login form has no padlock, but the form posts
to a secure URL. Of course, I've seen some sites that fix this problem
by just putting a big padlock image on the page;-) Speaking of which, I
better secure this email before I forget.
___
/___\
// \\
=======
| |
| |
=======
IMHO, the short answer is that if you need SSL to protect the
credentials and content of your site...you should also protect the login
page itself.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Levenglick, Jeff [mailto:JLevenglick@fhlbatl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:05 PM
To: Dave Ockwell-Jenner
Cc: webappsec@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Should login pages be protected by SSL?
I agree, but I can see why most places do not do this.
1) SSL on the server side eats up a lot of cpu time. Yes, this day and
age there are proxy boxes,ssl off-load boxes, faster cpu's..ect,
But not everybody has the money or time to upgrade. When you get
thousands or millions of hits, it can make a difference.
2) Most login functions are more then just a form based login. It may
look like your about to enter your info in cleartext, but a correct
Page will encrypt the info and pass you to a ssl page.
There are a lot of other items besides ssl that can hurt you. One quick
example - cookies. A poor program could store info in the clear in a
cookie and even leave it on your hard disk.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Ockwell-Jenner [mailto:doj@solar-nexus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 07:05 AM
Cc: webappsec@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Should login pages be protected by SSL?
From a purely non-technical viewpoint: it may be a good idea for the
login page to be protected by SSL if for no other reason that having the
browser show the "padlock" symbol. It's something that non-technical,
non-web developer people can see and (somewhat) understand. Since they
are typing their password on a page, that's what many associate with -
"I'm not entering my password here, I don't see the padlock".
Amir Herzberg wrote:
There may be some argument even in this case (privacy, tendency of
users to use same passwords, ...). But this was _not_ my intent. I may
not have been clear, but I am interested in sensitive sites -
financial, shopping, security (CA, DNS, SSO, Portals, etc.). As you
can see in my `Hall of Shame` http://AmirHerzberg.com/shame.html, many
of these don't use SSL to authenticate the login page, only to encrypt
the password (when using a correct login page).
So, the real question I'm asking: should login pages to sensitive
(e.g. financial) sites be protected by SSL?
--
Dave Ockwell-Jenner
Solar Nexus Solutions
http://www.solar-nexus.com/
-----------------------------------------
This e-mail message is private and may contain confidential or
privileged
information.
-----Message Disclaimer-----
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
reply email to Connect@principal.com and delete or destroy all copies of
the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from the
Principal Financial Group or any of its member companies may be retained
as required by law or regulation.
Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an Electronic signature
for purposes of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) or the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ("E-Sign")
unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
