Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And yet on the flipside, it should prevent interception of login credentials or page-content filtering.


> it should prevent interception of login credentials

That was already possible using HN's OpenID support and a secure provider.


OpenID doesn't prevent session hijacking though does it? It would just prevent the credentials being stolen.


> That was already possible using HN's OpenID support and a secure provider.

Not actually sure what your point is here.


Using OpenID (with a secure provider) to login to HN prevents the stealing of login credentials and was possible even without HN supporting HTTPS. I don't see what's strange about this.

By the way, I'm not claiming that enabling HTTPS is wrong, I'm giving potential disadvantages. It's the website admins' job to weight those against the advantages and decide whether it's the right thing to do or not.


OpenID may prevent stealing login credentials, but it doesn't prevent stealing the cookie which identifies your session.


Also, if you can hijack the http, you can link to a phishing site which prompts users for their OpenID provider (typically their google account) credentials. Maybe they would notice that the domain name of the phishing site (say googleopenid.com, which is available) is fishy ...

https gives you more than just encryption.


I meant why the fact there was a way to do it already actually related to the debate overmuch. This protects people who just use a bog-standard HN account, and further secures all users when actually on the site regardless of login method.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: