freebsd security - Dec 2017 - http subversion URLs should be discontinued in favor of https URLs

Yuri wrote:
> On 12/10/17 11:36, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>> If I give my bank card and PIN to someone who I don't trust, I
can't
>> complain that my bank doesn't take adequate precautions if that
person
>> drains my bank account! You choose to go down a route that*you* know is
>> compromised!
>
>
> 1. The user has set up the subversion source trees based on the 
> *current advice* here for anonymous checkout: 
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsSubversionPrimer
>
>> % svn co http://svn.freebsd.org/ports/head /usr/ports
>
> 2. The user heard that Tor improves his anonymity, and decided to use it.
>
> 3. The user updated the sources through Tor and got hacked.
>
> Where did this user go wrong, or where has he been irresponsible?
>
User gets an email saying his banking details are compromised, and to 
update them now.

User clicks the link and gives banking details to phishing site as well 
as having a keylogger and rootkit installed during the process.

User has bank account hacked.

Where did the bank go wrong?

Bank installs secondary security to prevent phishing/user realises the 
site is phishing and puts in false details or aborts the input...  
Keylogger is still on their system though because that was installed on 
the first click before the page was updated because of a compromised 
Microsoft code signing certificate...

Where did the bank or the user go wrong?

Maybe instead, user takes their phone into the local Maccas and uses the 
hotspot there, as part of the sign-in they get a compromised app from a 
local hacker that has been stalking the hotspot...  Ding ding ding we 
have a winner... can't trust the network, just like the Tor case...

etc

etc

etc

Michelle

Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net> writes:
> User gets an email saying his banking details are compromised, and to
> update them now.  User clicks the link and gives banking details to
> phishing site as well as having a keylogger and rootkit installed
> during the process.  User has bank account hacked.  Where did the bank
> go wrong?
Banks and financial institutions have whole teams working 24/7, usually
in cooperation with national authorities, to detect, investigate and
shut down phishing campaigns, and to warn customers (either directly or
through mass media) of particularly large or well-executed campaigns.
In the EU and EEA, banks are liable for losses in excess of ?150 unless
the customer acted ?with intent or gross negligence?, but the definition
of ?gross negligence? is fluid.  Legal precedent in Norway is to hold
the customer liable only if the email was ?an obvious forgery?, for some
definition of ?obvious?.

TL;DR: yes, banks are held liable for losses attributable to phishing.

Source: I do this for a living (although not at a bank).

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - des at des.no