Here's Why Your Static Website Needs HTTPS
Troy Hunt2 HN recommenders · 2020–2023
30K views · talk · evergreen · Uploaded 2018-07-12
Troy Hunt argues that even static, non-secret websites need HTTPS, demonstrating attacks such as injected content and China's Great Cannon. It accompanies his blog post of the same name.
Cited as a must-watch persuasive case for HTTPS everywhere.
51:32Behind the Scenes of iOS Security
Black Hat
12:01Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea
Tom Scott
25:16But how does bitcoin actually work?
3Blue1Brown
51:22USENIX Security '18-Q: Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible?
USENIX
42:50Defcon 18 Changing threats to privacy Moxie Marlinspike Part
killab66661
36:47Harder Drive: Hard drives we didn't want or need
suckerpinch
59:2328c3: The Science of Insecurity
28c3
7:26This Video Is Sponsored By ███ VPN
Tom Scott
3 comments from Hacker News
This was the article that convinced me to be HTTPS everywhere (well maybe in 99.99% cases if not everywhere). The linked video is a must watch to those who still doubt HTTPS[0]. The mention of China's Great Cannon was particularly eye-opening[1]. 0. [VIDEO] 1. [LINK]
The reason I'd advocate in more public settings is that things ought to be secure-by-default, and that adopting security only upon realizing its necessity is a hazard-prone policy that constantly backfires. But for a specific example of something that could go wrong: someone could inject malicious content into a non-secure page. The original content might be plain-text, but a man-in-the-middle can still inject whatever they like regardless. As a common example of a simple attack: an attacker could man-in-the-middle people who connect to a nearby wireless network. Notes: 1. There're a bunch of ways that an attacker could get people to connect to their network. Examples: spoofing a legitimate network; setting up a password-less network; putting up a poster falsely advertising the SSID/pass to a network that falsely purports itself to be official; they're an actual employee of the establishment and just compromise the legitimate network; they're a remote-hacker who's exploited a vulnerability in the router. 2. The attacker could do lots of random stuff. Examples: they could inject malicious code; they could inject misinformation to facilitate scamming someone; they could insert ads; steal CPU-time/electricity for crypto-mining; they could just put gross porno on everyone's phone in a restaurant as a troll. Or something else. Or multiple things. 3. The original site being just plain-text doesn't really matter; the attacker can replace the entire thing without even contacting the
[LINK] The whole video is great, but particularly this: [VIDEO] [LINK] There are a lot of arguments about why, even non-secret data connection need encryption. The first and most obvious is that not doing so immediately puts a target on the encrypted data. By no means an expert but to me it seems like an oversight not to.