A link redirect to http instead of https: how critical is it?How secure is HTTP / HTTPS over 3G?Javascript http to https redirect - how vulnerable/how secure?Actually, isn't it bad to redirect http to https?Why do browsers default to http: and not https: for typed in URLs?OAuth 2.0 client side redirect instead of HTTP redirectIs an HTTP 301 redirect to HTTPS, insecure?Bypassing HTTP to HTTPS cached 301 redirect to use SSLstripDoes HTTP redirect to HTTPS automatically?Does hosting an http->https redirect let http basic auth leak?Is it ok to send plain text credentials in a XHR GET request?
how to write formula in word in latex
Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?
Life insurance that covers only simultaneous/dual deaths
How to simplify this time periods definition interface?
Do the common programs (for example: "ls", "cat") in Linux and BSD come from the same source code?
Can I use USB data pins as power source
A sequence that has integer values for prime indexes only:
Why do Australian milk farmers need to protest supermarkets' milk price?
Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day
Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?
How to deal with taxi scam when on vacation?
Happy pi day, everyone!
Error in Twin Prime Conjecture
What did Alexander Pope mean by "Expletives their feeble Aid do join"?
How to make healing in an exploration game interesting
Why doesn't the EU now just force the UK to choose between referendum and no-deal?
How do I hide Chekhov's Gun?
It's a yearly task, alright
Co-worker team leader wants to inject his friend's awful software into our development. What should I say to our common boss?
In a future war, an old lady is trying to raise a boy but one of the weapons has made everyone deaf
How do anti-virus programs start at Windows boot?
How difficult is it to simply disable/disengage the MCAS on Boeing 737 Max 8 & 9 Aircraft?
How to write cleanly even if my character uses expletive language?
Does Mathematica reuse previous computations?
A link redirect to http instead of https: how critical is it?
How secure is HTTP / HTTPS over 3G?Javascript http to https redirect - how vulnerable/how secure?Actually, isn't it bad to redirect http to https?Why do browsers default to http: and not https: for typed in URLs?OAuth 2.0 client side redirect instead of HTTP redirectIs an HTTP 301 redirect to HTTPS, insecure?Bypassing HTTP to HTTPS cached 301 redirect to use SSLstripDoes HTTP redirect to HTTPS automatically?Does hosting an http->https redirect let http basic auth leak?Is it ok to send plain text credentials in a XHR GET request?
I just join a project, and while browsing the code, I realize that some links redirect to another web page, in HTTP instead of HTTPS.
The linked website has an https version, and there was no reason to not use it so I fix the issue.
However, the first website is on production, so we should avoid rebuilding the whole server for minor correction but rather wait to regroup several minor fixes.
I'm just wondering if this is a minor fix, or if leading users to an HTTP website is a major problem.
The linked website is a showcase website belonging to the company I work for, and there is no interaction such as logging into an account, so I guess while man in the middle attack is still possible, there is no sensible content/data to steal. Besides that, the link is in the footer of the first website, and the website itself doesn't have major traffic, so the number of people clicking it shouldn't be that high
How critical is it? Can such issue wait several days, or should it be fixed as soon as possible?
tls http
add a comment |
I just join a project, and while browsing the code, I realize that some links redirect to another web page, in HTTP instead of HTTPS.
The linked website has an https version, and there was no reason to not use it so I fix the issue.
However, the first website is on production, so we should avoid rebuilding the whole server for minor correction but rather wait to regroup several minor fixes.
I'm just wondering if this is a minor fix, or if leading users to an HTTP website is a major problem.
The linked website is a showcase website belonging to the company I work for, and there is no interaction such as logging into an account, so I guess while man in the middle attack is still possible, there is no sensible content/data to steal. Besides that, the link is in the footer of the first website, and the website itself doesn't have major traffic, so the number of people clicking it shouldn't be that high
How critical is it? Can such issue wait several days, or should it be fixed as soon as possible?
tls http
I don't think this is answerable in the general case, but in your specific case it doesn't seem remotely important. Between the low user volume and the lack of sensitive data, a MITM attack hardly seems likely or useful. I can't see any reason to rush a fix out, outside of whatever regular deployment cadence the company uses.
– meagar
12 hours ago
Incidentally, I think the more useful fix is to have the destination website stop allowing HTTP connections. It should redirect HTTP connections to HTTPS.
– meagar
12 hours ago
@meagar Not allowing HTTP connections is generally a usability concern, and it doesn't actually do anything to prevent MitM anyway (at least for active MitM).
– AndrolGenhald
10 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald What is the usability concern? The majority of the Internet is moving in this direction.
– meagar
10 hours ago
1
@meagar Most people still typegoogle.com
rather thanhttps://google.com
. Redirecting from HTTP to HTTPS is going to be the recommended behavior for a good while yet (reading your comment again I see you actually mention redirecting, but redirecting and disabling HTTP are two very different things, you have to establish an HTTP connection before the redirection is possible).
– AndrolGenhald
9 hours ago
add a comment |
I just join a project, and while browsing the code, I realize that some links redirect to another web page, in HTTP instead of HTTPS.
The linked website has an https version, and there was no reason to not use it so I fix the issue.
However, the first website is on production, so we should avoid rebuilding the whole server for minor correction but rather wait to regroup several minor fixes.
I'm just wondering if this is a minor fix, or if leading users to an HTTP website is a major problem.
The linked website is a showcase website belonging to the company I work for, and there is no interaction such as logging into an account, so I guess while man in the middle attack is still possible, there is no sensible content/data to steal. Besides that, the link is in the footer of the first website, and the website itself doesn't have major traffic, so the number of people clicking it shouldn't be that high
How critical is it? Can such issue wait several days, or should it be fixed as soon as possible?
tls http
I just join a project, and while browsing the code, I realize that some links redirect to another web page, in HTTP instead of HTTPS.
The linked website has an https version, and there was no reason to not use it so I fix the issue.
However, the first website is on production, so we should avoid rebuilding the whole server for minor correction but rather wait to regroup several minor fixes.
I'm just wondering if this is a minor fix, or if leading users to an HTTP website is a major problem.
The linked website is a showcase website belonging to the company I work for, and there is no interaction such as logging into an account, so I guess while man in the middle attack is still possible, there is no sensible content/data to steal. Besides that, the link is in the footer of the first website, and the website itself doesn't have major traffic, so the number of people clicking it shouldn't be that high
How critical is it? Can such issue wait several days, or should it be fixed as soon as possible?
tls http
tls http
asked 13 hours ago
KepotxKepotx
5271312
5271312
I don't think this is answerable in the general case, but in your specific case it doesn't seem remotely important. Between the low user volume and the lack of sensitive data, a MITM attack hardly seems likely or useful. I can't see any reason to rush a fix out, outside of whatever regular deployment cadence the company uses.
– meagar
12 hours ago
Incidentally, I think the more useful fix is to have the destination website stop allowing HTTP connections. It should redirect HTTP connections to HTTPS.
– meagar
12 hours ago
@meagar Not allowing HTTP connections is generally a usability concern, and it doesn't actually do anything to prevent MitM anyway (at least for active MitM).
– AndrolGenhald
10 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald What is the usability concern? The majority of the Internet is moving in this direction.
– meagar
10 hours ago
1
@meagar Most people still typegoogle.com
rather thanhttps://google.com
. Redirecting from HTTP to HTTPS is going to be the recommended behavior for a good while yet (reading your comment again I see you actually mention redirecting, but redirecting and disabling HTTP are two very different things, you have to establish an HTTP connection before the redirection is possible).
– AndrolGenhald
9 hours ago
add a comment |
I don't think this is answerable in the general case, but in your specific case it doesn't seem remotely important. Between the low user volume and the lack of sensitive data, a MITM attack hardly seems likely or useful. I can't see any reason to rush a fix out, outside of whatever regular deployment cadence the company uses.
– meagar
12 hours ago
Incidentally, I think the more useful fix is to have the destination website stop allowing HTTP connections. It should redirect HTTP connections to HTTPS.
– meagar
12 hours ago
@meagar Not allowing HTTP connections is generally a usability concern, and it doesn't actually do anything to prevent MitM anyway (at least for active MitM).
– AndrolGenhald
10 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald What is the usability concern? The majority of the Internet is moving in this direction.
– meagar
10 hours ago
1
@meagar Most people still typegoogle.com
rather thanhttps://google.com
. Redirecting from HTTP to HTTPS is going to be the recommended behavior for a good while yet (reading your comment again I see you actually mention redirecting, but redirecting and disabling HTTP are two very different things, you have to establish an HTTP connection before the redirection is possible).
– AndrolGenhald
9 hours ago
I don't think this is answerable in the general case, but in your specific case it doesn't seem remotely important. Between the low user volume and the lack of sensitive data, a MITM attack hardly seems likely or useful. I can't see any reason to rush a fix out, outside of whatever regular deployment cadence the company uses.
– meagar
12 hours ago
I don't think this is answerable in the general case, but in your specific case it doesn't seem remotely important. Between the low user volume and the lack of sensitive data, a MITM attack hardly seems likely or useful. I can't see any reason to rush a fix out, outside of whatever regular deployment cadence the company uses.
– meagar
12 hours ago
Incidentally, I think the more useful fix is to have the destination website stop allowing HTTP connections. It should redirect HTTP connections to HTTPS.
– meagar
12 hours ago
Incidentally, I think the more useful fix is to have the destination website stop allowing HTTP connections. It should redirect HTTP connections to HTTPS.
– meagar
12 hours ago
@meagar Not allowing HTTP connections is generally a usability concern, and it doesn't actually do anything to prevent MitM anyway (at least for active MitM).
– AndrolGenhald
10 hours ago
@meagar Not allowing HTTP connections is generally a usability concern, and it doesn't actually do anything to prevent MitM anyway (at least for active MitM).
– AndrolGenhald
10 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald What is the usability concern? The majority of the Internet is moving in this direction.
– meagar
10 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald What is the usability concern? The majority of the Internet is moving in this direction.
– meagar
10 hours ago
1
1
@meagar Most people still type
google.com
rather than https://google.com
. Redirecting from HTTP to HTTPS is going to be the recommended behavior for a good while yet (reading your comment again I see you actually mention redirecting, but redirecting and disabling HTTP are two very different things, you have to establish an HTTP connection before the redirection is possible).– AndrolGenhald
9 hours ago
@meagar Most people still type
google.com
rather than https://google.com
. Redirecting from HTTP to HTTPS is going to be the recommended behavior for a good while yet (reading your comment again I see you actually mention redirecting, but redirecting and disabling HTTP are two very different things, you have to establish an HTTP connection before the redirection is possible).– AndrolGenhald
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
In general, the risk is low, as other answers here indicate. However, there is a scenario where risk is introduced:
- You have session tokens being passed as cookie data
- The cookies are scoped in such a way that the other (non-https) site has access to them
- The cookies do not have the
secure
flag set
In the case that all of those are present, the session tokens may be intercepted via man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attack; since the browser will send them to the other site automatically, and they will be sent in plain text rather than over the encrypted HTTPS stream.
That's a fairly specific set of criteria, and MiTM attack is semi-tough to pull off, so how much real risk this presents should be decided based on 1) whether your site has all 3 of those criteria present, and 2) how sensitive the information in your application is.
New contributor
add a comment |
If your website is purely static and doesn't contain any login or sensitive data, then the risk on a technical level is likely low, and may not warrant an out of cycle fix.
On the other hand there's a risk to reputation. If your business relies on a reputation of being "secure" then it may look bad to potential customers/clients that you aren't following best practices (https everywhere).
EDIT: As per Jason Ross' answer I should also mention that leaking credentials through cookies is possible when a user visits the insecure website, and has logged into a web app on the same domain and the cookies were also improperly set (missing SECURE bit)
add a comment |
In many modern enterprise deployment scenarios application developers do not worry about https at all as this is a concern of the infrastructure team. In these cases SSL is terminated on the Load Balancer, and the certs are managed by the infrastructure team. The Load Balancer also would serve the http -> https redirect by default.
With this view of the world, where the app redirects to does not really matter that much. For consistency it's better to use the current protocol and not http or https specifically, so your application works equally well in dev (without tls) or in prod (with tls).
As Jason Ross pointed out, if cookies don't have thesecure
flag then passive MitM is a concern even if it redirects. To prevent active MitM links must be to HTTPS and not HTTP (HSTS mostly mitigates this, but not entirely). It also shouldn't be terribly difficult to use TLS in a development environment anyway.
– AndrolGenhald
6 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald yep, true. Assume that cookies does have the secure flag as per best practices. As for "terribly difficult" it's subjective. Not difficult at all for you and me, but from my experience more than a couple of people needed help with that. In a working environment when any friction during development should be minimized, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask to take this off developers shoulders.
– Andrew Savinykh
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "162"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f205446%2fa-link-redirect-to-http-instead-of-https-how-critical-is-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In general, the risk is low, as other answers here indicate. However, there is a scenario where risk is introduced:
- You have session tokens being passed as cookie data
- The cookies are scoped in such a way that the other (non-https) site has access to them
- The cookies do not have the
secure
flag set
In the case that all of those are present, the session tokens may be intercepted via man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attack; since the browser will send them to the other site automatically, and they will be sent in plain text rather than over the encrypted HTTPS stream.
That's a fairly specific set of criteria, and MiTM attack is semi-tough to pull off, so how much real risk this presents should be decided based on 1) whether your site has all 3 of those criteria present, and 2) how sensitive the information in your application is.
New contributor
add a comment |
In general, the risk is low, as other answers here indicate. However, there is a scenario where risk is introduced:
- You have session tokens being passed as cookie data
- The cookies are scoped in such a way that the other (non-https) site has access to them
- The cookies do not have the
secure
flag set
In the case that all of those are present, the session tokens may be intercepted via man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attack; since the browser will send them to the other site automatically, and they will be sent in plain text rather than over the encrypted HTTPS stream.
That's a fairly specific set of criteria, and MiTM attack is semi-tough to pull off, so how much real risk this presents should be decided based on 1) whether your site has all 3 of those criteria present, and 2) how sensitive the information in your application is.
New contributor
add a comment |
In general, the risk is low, as other answers here indicate. However, there is a scenario where risk is introduced:
- You have session tokens being passed as cookie data
- The cookies are scoped in such a way that the other (non-https) site has access to them
- The cookies do not have the
secure
flag set
In the case that all of those are present, the session tokens may be intercepted via man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attack; since the browser will send them to the other site automatically, and they will be sent in plain text rather than over the encrypted HTTPS stream.
That's a fairly specific set of criteria, and MiTM attack is semi-tough to pull off, so how much real risk this presents should be decided based on 1) whether your site has all 3 of those criteria present, and 2) how sensitive the information in your application is.
New contributor
In general, the risk is low, as other answers here indicate. However, there is a scenario where risk is introduced:
- You have session tokens being passed as cookie data
- The cookies are scoped in such a way that the other (non-https) site has access to them
- The cookies do not have the
secure
flag set
In the case that all of those are present, the session tokens may be intercepted via man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attack; since the browser will send them to the other site automatically, and they will be sent in plain text rather than over the encrypted HTTPS stream.
That's a fairly specific set of criteria, and MiTM attack is semi-tough to pull off, so how much real risk this presents should be decided based on 1) whether your site has all 3 of those criteria present, and 2) how sensitive the information in your application is.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 11 hours ago
Jason RossJason Ross
513
513
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
If your website is purely static and doesn't contain any login or sensitive data, then the risk on a technical level is likely low, and may not warrant an out of cycle fix.
On the other hand there's a risk to reputation. If your business relies on a reputation of being "secure" then it may look bad to potential customers/clients that you aren't following best practices (https everywhere).
EDIT: As per Jason Ross' answer I should also mention that leaking credentials through cookies is possible when a user visits the insecure website, and has logged into a web app on the same domain and the cookies were also improperly set (missing SECURE bit)
add a comment |
If your website is purely static and doesn't contain any login or sensitive data, then the risk on a technical level is likely low, and may not warrant an out of cycle fix.
On the other hand there's a risk to reputation. If your business relies on a reputation of being "secure" then it may look bad to potential customers/clients that you aren't following best practices (https everywhere).
EDIT: As per Jason Ross' answer I should also mention that leaking credentials through cookies is possible when a user visits the insecure website, and has logged into a web app on the same domain and the cookies were also improperly set (missing SECURE bit)
add a comment |
If your website is purely static and doesn't contain any login or sensitive data, then the risk on a technical level is likely low, and may not warrant an out of cycle fix.
On the other hand there's a risk to reputation. If your business relies on a reputation of being "secure" then it may look bad to potential customers/clients that you aren't following best practices (https everywhere).
EDIT: As per Jason Ross' answer I should also mention that leaking credentials through cookies is possible when a user visits the insecure website, and has logged into a web app on the same domain and the cookies were also improperly set (missing SECURE bit)
If your website is purely static and doesn't contain any login or sensitive data, then the risk on a technical level is likely low, and may not warrant an out of cycle fix.
On the other hand there's a risk to reputation. If your business relies on a reputation of being "secure" then it may look bad to potential customers/clients that you aren't following best practices (https everywhere).
EDIT: As per Jason Ross' answer I should also mention that leaking credentials through cookies is possible when a user visits the insecure website, and has logged into a web app on the same domain and the cookies were also improperly set (missing SECURE bit)
edited 5 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
DaisetsuDaisetsu
4,21811021
4,21811021
add a comment |
add a comment |
In many modern enterprise deployment scenarios application developers do not worry about https at all as this is a concern of the infrastructure team. In these cases SSL is terminated on the Load Balancer, and the certs are managed by the infrastructure team. The Load Balancer also would serve the http -> https redirect by default.
With this view of the world, where the app redirects to does not really matter that much. For consistency it's better to use the current protocol and not http or https specifically, so your application works equally well in dev (without tls) or in prod (with tls).
As Jason Ross pointed out, if cookies don't have thesecure
flag then passive MitM is a concern even if it redirects. To prevent active MitM links must be to HTTPS and not HTTP (HSTS mostly mitigates this, but not entirely). It also shouldn't be terribly difficult to use TLS in a development environment anyway.
– AndrolGenhald
6 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald yep, true. Assume that cookies does have the secure flag as per best practices. As for "terribly difficult" it's subjective. Not difficult at all for you and me, but from my experience more than a couple of people needed help with that. In a working environment when any friction during development should be minimized, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask to take this off developers shoulders.
– Andrew Savinykh
6 hours ago
add a comment |
In many modern enterprise deployment scenarios application developers do not worry about https at all as this is a concern of the infrastructure team. In these cases SSL is terminated on the Load Balancer, and the certs are managed by the infrastructure team. The Load Balancer also would serve the http -> https redirect by default.
With this view of the world, where the app redirects to does not really matter that much. For consistency it's better to use the current protocol and not http or https specifically, so your application works equally well in dev (without tls) or in prod (with tls).
As Jason Ross pointed out, if cookies don't have thesecure
flag then passive MitM is a concern even if it redirects. To prevent active MitM links must be to HTTPS and not HTTP (HSTS mostly mitigates this, but not entirely). It also shouldn't be terribly difficult to use TLS in a development environment anyway.
– AndrolGenhald
6 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald yep, true. Assume that cookies does have the secure flag as per best practices. As for "terribly difficult" it's subjective. Not difficult at all for you and me, but from my experience more than a couple of people needed help with that. In a working environment when any friction during development should be minimized, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask to take this off developers shoulders.
– Andrew Savinykh
6 hours ago
add a comment |
In many modern enterprise deployment scenarios application developers do not worry about https at all as this is a concern of the infrastructure team. In these cases SSL is terminated on the Load Balancer, and the certs are managed by the infrastructure team. The Load Balancer also would serve the http -> https redirect by default.
With this view of the world, where the app redirects to does not really matter that much. For consistency it's better to use the current protocol and not http or https specifically, so your application works equally well in dev (without tls) or in prod (with tls).
In many modern enterprise deployment scenarios application developers do not worry about https at all as this is a concern of the infrastructure team. In these cases SSL is terminated on the Load Balancer, and the certs are managed by the infrastructure team. The Load Balancer also would serve the http -> https redirect by default.
With this view of the world, where the app redirects to does not really matter that much. For consistency it's better to use the current protocol and not http or https specifically, so your application works equally well in dev (without tls) or in prod (with tls).
answered 7 hours ago
Andrew SavinykhAndrew Savinykh
8152919
8152919
As Jason Ross pointed out, if cookies don't have thesecure
flag then passive MitM is a concern even if it redirects. To prevent active MitM links must be to HTTPS and not HTTP (HSTS mostly mitigates this, but not entirely). It also shouldn't be terribly difficult to use TLS in a development environment anyway.
– AndrolGenhald
6 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald yep, true. Assume that cookies does have the secure flag as per best practices. As for "terribly difficult" it's subjective. Not difficult at all for you and me, but from my experience more than a couple of people needed help with that. In a working environment when any friction during development should be minimized, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask to take this off developers shoulders.
– Andrew Savinykh
6 hours ago
add a comment |
As Jason Ross pointed out, if cookies don't have thesecure
flag then passive MitM is a concern even if it redirects. To prevent active MitM links must be to HTTPS and not HTTP (HSTS mostly mitigates this, but not entirely). It also shouldn't be terribly difficult to use TLS in a development environment anyway.
– AndrolGenhald
6 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald yep, true. Assume that cookies does have the secure flag as per best practices. As for "terribly difficult" it's subjective. Not difficult at all for you and me, but from my experience more than a couple of people needed help with that. In a working environment when any friction during development should be minimized, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask to take this off developers shoulders.
– Andrew Savinykh
6 hours ago
As Jason Ross pointed out, if cookies don't have the
secure
flag then passive MitM is a concern even if it redirects. To prevent active MitM links must be to HTTPS and not HTTP (HSTS mostly mitigates this, but not entirely). It also shouldn't be terribly difficult to use TLS in a development environment anyway.– AndrolGenhald
6 hours ago
As Jason Ross pointed out, if cookies don't have the
secure
flag then passive MitM is a concern even if it redirects. To prevent active MitM links must be to HTTPS and not HTTP (HSTS mostly mitigates this, but not entirely). It also shouldn't be terribly difficult to use TLS in a development environment anyway.– AndrolGenhald
6 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald yep, true. Assume that cookies does have the secure flag as per best practices. As for "terribly difficult" it's subjective. Not difficult at all for you and me, but from my experience more than a couple of people needed help with that. In a working environment when any friction during development should be minimized, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask to take this off developers shoulders.
– Andrew Savinykh
6 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald yep, true. Assume that cookies does have the secure flag as per best practices. As for "terribly difficult" it's subjective. Not difficult at all for you and me, but from my experience more than a couple of people needed help with that. In a working environment when any friction during development should be minimized, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask to take this off developers shoulders.
– Andrew Savinykh
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f205446%2fa-link-redirect-to-http-instead-of-https-how-critical-is-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I don't think this is answerable in the general case, but in your specific case it doesn't seem remotely important. Between the low user volume and the lack of sensitive data, a MITM attack hardly seems likely or useful. I can't see any reason to rush a fix out, outside of whatever regular deployment cadence the company uses.
– meagar
12 hours ago
Incidentally, I think the more useful fix is to have the destination website stop allowing HTTP connections. It should redirect HTTP connections to HTTPS.
– meagar
12 hours ago
@meagar Not allowing HTTP connections is generally a usability concern, and it doesn't actually do anything to prevent MitM anyway (at least for active MitM).
– AndrolGenhald
10 hours ago
@AndrolGenhald What is the usability concern? The majority of the Internet is moving in this direction.
– meagar
10 hours ago
1
@meagar Most people still type
google.com
rather thanhttps://google.com
. Redirecting from HTTP to HTTPS is going to be the recommended behavior for a good while yet (reading your comment again I see you actually mention redirecting, but redirecting and disabling HTTP are two very different things, you have to establish an HTTP connection before the redirection is possible).– AndrolGenhald
9 hours ago