[requinot59]

As a side note, news.ycombinator.com should really have HTTPS access.

Passwords and cookies in clear HTTP are no good. Anyone here (should) knows it. Firesheep proves it. GMail and Zuckerberg suffered it.

Just buy or get a free SSL certificate, and let nginx or stunnel handles SSL and proxies HTTP to/from Arc. Total cost, being pessimistic: 150$ for the certificate verification, and 2 hours to set-up the certs & nginx.

I know, it's awesome, it's a custom Arc webserver and all, and good practices are for PHBs only, but still. For a "hacker" website, news.ycombinator.com is a shame regarding to privacy/security (see also: passwords stored as shasums (without even a salt), funny things like <img src="http://news.ycombinator.com/logout>, outdated versions of software used [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=516122], etc.)

[there]

i'm sure the audience of this site is technically savvy enough to all be running modern browsers that recognize startcom as a valid CA (if not, consider it a valid barrier to entry), so it would be free and take just a few hours to receive an SSL certificate for this site.

http://www.startssl.com/?app=1

[illumin8]

Although I agree that having free SSL certificates is nice, I question whether it's actually a viable way to certify the authenticity of a site. Seriously, if you make it free, spammers will overrun it. Why should we trust free SSL certs? I think having a cost provides a certain barrier to entry that is good overall.

[jackowayed]

We don't need SSL certificates for authentication. I know that when I go to news.ycombinator.com, I'm getting Hacker News.

We need SSL certificates for encryption. With the certificate you get a private key that is used for secure communication between your browser and HN (both ways).

If it didn't cause every browser to show a big, scary, your-computer-will-instantly-explode-and-your-children's-social-security-numbers-will-be-stolen-if-you-continue, using self-signed certificates (ie. certificates that anyone can just generate) wouldn't be that big of a deal. It could open you up to a man-in-the-middle attack, but it's still way better than sending everything in the clear.

[MichaelGG]

> I know that when I go to news.ycombinator.com, I'm getting Hacker News.

How do you know that? That's the whole point of SSL - knowing that you've traded private keys with the right party.

SSL for "encryption only" only works to defend against attackers that can listen to your network, but cannot write to it. So, sure, it defends against some passive collection system, and perhaps against some tools that are designed to just listen.

But, if browsers stopped displaying warnings, so that using a "bad" certificate worked just fine, then I'd bet the tools would just switch to allow cert injection and we'd all be worse off.

[SomeCallMeTim]

There was a story I read a while back about a support ticket filed with Mozilla for FireFox complaining about all of these "security warnings" that would pop up at every HTTPS site the user visited.

She was apparently someone who should have known better, but instead was willing to believe that FireFox was just warning her spuriously about valid HTTPS certs -- yes, someone had hacked her computer, and was collecting every bank, credit card, and online shopping password as she fell for an MITM attack over and over.

[martey]

I believe that this is the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=460374

[runningdogx]

In that case, Mallory was a fool. Mallory should have installed the MITM cert in the browser's certificate store, to prevent warnings. How many people routinely audit their browser's SSL cert list?

[gergles]

No, the point of SSL is encryption. SSH seems to handle key exchange just fine.

(Hint: https should have been implemented the same way. CAs are fundamentally broken.)

[kgo]

No, SSH does not. Have you ever actually verified a host fingerprint? Of course not, no one does.

That's the way it's supposed to work. You know the first time you logon to a server and it asks if you trust it? You're supposed to call up the server admin and get them to read off the fingerprint, or have them email it to you, or get it from some other out-of-band channel.

And no-one, nowhere actually verifies host fingerprints. Even security conscious people. And what do people do when they get that warning about a modified fingerprint? Just delete the entry from authorized_hosts and re-connect.

So ssh actually does a really shitty job handling key exchange.

Anyway, the closest thing to a real alternative to https and CAs is monkeysphere (OpenPGP WoT for servers), but no-one uses that.

[apotheon]

How does some corporation that will disclaim liability at the first sign of a light breeze telling you a site is "authentic" trump your own personal judgment? CAs are scams.

Use something like Perspectives instead of CAs:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/perspectives-bette...

[dmm]

StartSSL requires you to respond to an email sent to the address listed in the domain registration. That at least shows you have control of the domain. It also has certificates with greater levels of verification.

[dspeyer]

Being able to pay isn't a very good barrier. Being broke doesn't mean having no meaningful content, and most attackers who can make serious MitM attacks can pay. CAs are supposed to have real barriers (and I think most of them do).

In this case, though, we don't need a CA. PG could publish the key in an essay and we'd just carry it through manually.

[jimrandomh]

The point of collecting payment for certificates is not that attackers can't afford it, but that it enables the CA to do some cursory verification, and creates a trail of evidence if the certificate is used for a scam later.

[ericb]

Here is a link to the relevant feature request (although it is a sin to call this a feature) in the feature requests thread:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=499851

[tptacek]

All HN needs is a note above the password field saying "don't use an important password". Nobody should care.

[redthrowaway]

Given, however, that many founders and tech journalists use the site, a compromised account could be used to severely damage a startup's credibility. All it would take would be a few posts on HN before a funding round that called into question the founder's ethics, skill, or common sense, and someone from TechCrunch to pick up on it. It could cause sufficient uncertainty, if properly timed, to make potential investors stay away. That, in turn, could spell big trouble for a company.

Granted, that scenario may seem far-fetched, but it's not unreasonable to suppose that some unscrupulous person might have motive to do something of the sort. Rather than deal with the fallout if it does occur, why not simply allow people the option of having a secure login? If they choose not to use it, that's their prerogative.

[requinot59]

Exactly. Take a tour of the SF and Mountain View coffee-shops which offer free wifi with a laptop to sniff traffic. Isn't there a not-negligeable chance you might recolt some HN cookies from "interesting" accounts? Once you get them, it's just a matter of imagination before causing some harm.

HN is not the small and unfamous news site it was 2 years ago anymore.

[jackowayed]

And not just interesting like a high-profile person, but interesting like a YC founder who is a moderator. It's possible that PG has instructed mods not to log in over public connections, but I bet they occasionally do it.

[tptacek]

And how much damage could a hacked moderator account do to the site? This whole conversation seems like a symptom of taking this site way too seriously. The community is very valuable and even important. The site is just an artifact of it.

As evidence for my point of view (and, you can say "you're welcome" if my brinkmanship with this sentence is paid off by Graham promptly enabling SSL, which he could easily do in the process of fixing the far-more-important bug of this site not being served through a front-end proxy), note that next week SSL will in all likelihood not have SSL enabled. That request --- provide SSL --- has been outstanding forever. Does Graham also share my cavalier attitude towards the site?

[jackowayed]

That's true.

But remember that this is also the YC application system. A lot of alumni help read apps, probably just by getting a permission added to their account. So a lucky firesheep-er can probably read every application to YC. And mess up people's applications (if they get the account of an applicant before the deadline). And may reject people/delete apps if they were to get, say, pg's or harj's account.

And possibly other stuff. I don't know what all YC uses it for, but I get the impression that they continue to use it for various things (signing up for office hours?), some of which may be sensitive, once teams are accepted.

[requinot59]

That doesn't protect from cookie/password steal (for instance if you use a public Wifi hotspot).

I do care about identity usurpation.

[tptacek]

You shouldn't. There are more important things to care about.

[requinot59]

Like what, in the HN context?

[tptacek]

Declining quality of comments? Creeping influence of politics?

SSL is a giant waste of time for Hacker News, modulo the fact that people might be crazy enough to use a shared password here.

[requinot59]

> Declining quality of comments? Creeping influence of politics?

It's a fallacious argument in my book. Like comparing apples and oranges.

Say I run a bakery. What I care the most about is the quality of my bread. So much, I spend all my time working on that and only that. So much, I didn't ever bother to have a lock at the door. But it's not even a big deal if someone comes in and poisons one of the bread, as long as the overall quality is increasing!

> SSL is a giant waste of time for Hacker News

Yes, if by "giant" you mean that it takes like 2 hours to set-up, and a small payload for each negociation. But concerning the payload, Arc is not especially fast, so there is room for improvements there to compensate, if needed.

> modulo the fact that people might be crazy enough to use a shared password here.

Not the point, the point is HTTP sniffing.

And anyway, people could use a shared password, making it easier for them (don't overestimate human memory), if HN used (HTTPS and) a "real" password encryption scheme (bcrypt or the like). Why put the burden on the user when you can put it on the computer?

[statictype]

SSL is a giant waste of time for Hacker News,

Waste of time in what sense? The time it takes to set up SSL?