Firesheep developer: Facebook ignoring huge security problem

daveOS

Jedi
I tried tacking this onto the 'Facebook Must Die' thread, but that whole conversation represents a virtual identity crisis Sott.net created for me in choosing to associate with FB that I can't find any graceful way of navigating, and this following story I think represents a timely manifestation of 'People Power' demonstrating critical technical shortcomings of FB that deserves more focused scrutiny and wide attention than my confusion allows for (under the 'Facebook Must Die' context).

[quote author="Matt Markovich, komotv.com"]
Firesheep developer: Facebook ignoring huge security problem
_http://www.komonews.com/news/tech/107360348.html

SEATTLE -- On a recent afternoon, I surprised a lot of people at a coffee shop in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood. I walked in, sat down, got onto the café's free Wi-Fi network and fired up a free application called Firesheep.

With a minute, the names of a dozen people on the same wireless network started to appear in the Firesheep program. The users were listed along with the names of multi-billion dollar websites like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, YouTube and The New York Times.

In some cases, the person's Facebook profile picture would also appear, making it easy for me to identify them in the café.

With a simple click on the user's icon in Firesheep I could log into their account on Facebook or Twitter or a variety of other websites that do not use encryption to fully protect the browsing session with their users. I could easily assume someone else's online identity and do nearly anything I wanted with their account.

Firesheep is a frighteningly simple tool that streamlines techniques malicious computer hackers have used for years to gain unauthorized access to personal accounts on the internet. Firesheep takes these previously complex tasks and rolls them into a user-friendly program that even an average computer use like me can figure out.

"It's like you are in my house and I did not invite you," said a surprised Sarah Dooley.

After her Facebook icon appeared in my Firesheep list, I approached her as she typed away on her iBook. I showed on my computer her main Facebook page and described the simple steps it took to get into her account.

"This is scary and I'm glad you showed me," she said.

Making network intercepts easy

Firesheep is a free extension for the Firefox web browser. It was created by Eric Butler, a Seattle programmer, and first presented at a security convention in San Diego in October. In the first three weeks of its release, Firesheep has been downloaded more than 700,000 times and that number
Watch an extended interview with Firesheep developers Eric Butler and Ian Gallagher.

continues to grow daily.
Watch an extended interview with Firesheep developers Eric Butler and Ian Gallagher.


Butler's creation listens to the digital traffic on the network the user's computer is connected to. It's listening for a cookie -- that's term coined for a tiny bit of identifying information a user's computer exchanges with a website.

Cookies are what allow you to stay on a website that requires a user name and password without logging in every time you click to another page. But cookies are vulnerable to being hijacked if they are sent on an unencrypted connection.

Firesheep has built-in filters that listen for people on an unsecured network who may be exchanging information with websites like Facebook.

A user's initial log in to Facebook is encrypted and not vulnerable to hijacking. But every subsequent exchange between a Facebook user and Facebook's servers in what's called a "session" is unencrypted, and it's these exchanges Firesheep is catching.

Firesheep lets its user essentially grab that cookie out of the air and place it on their computer. In doing so, the Firesheep user can take over the identity of the Facebook user and alter almost anything in the account except for the initial login password.

"I wrote Firesheep because I was tired of having to deal with websites that were ignoring this problem of user privacy," Butler told me in his first interview since releasing Firesheep. "Hopefully sites like Facebook and Twitter will see this and decide protecting user privacy is a priority for them."

"The elephant in the room"

The security software programmer admits that Firesheep simplifies the hijacking process to the point a novice user can figure it out, but said he doesn't think the tool turns good people into evil people.

"It's important to note that an attacker who's motivated has always been able to do this," Butler said.

Butler and co-developer Ian Gallagher believe the security lapse with websites that contain a person's private information has been ignored to such a great extent that something eye-opening had to be done.

"Users of these sites don't realize that this is happening, but the companies have known about this for a long time and have chosen to ignore this problem. Instead, they are putting money in privacy features and not making their websites secure," Butler said.

"Those privacy controls don't really matter if you can steal an entire user's session or you can see everything they are doing," said Gallagher, who help trouble shoot the plug-in. "It's the elephant in the room they've been disregarding."

Facebook did not respond to our e-mail requests for an interview. A spokesperson for the company did tell the Wall Street Journal that Facebook is looking into improving its online security.

Legal questions

Butler's intent may be noble but the repercussions of the release of Firesheep could create unknowing lawbreakers.

Watch: Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna discusses wiretapping laws and network security.

"I think when you are in a coffee shop and just doing your business online, if someone is intercepting everything you're doing, I think it's quite likely a violation of our state's wiretapping law and perhaps the federal wiretapping law as well," said Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna.

McKenna had never seen Firesheep until I showed him. He said he hasn't seen any case law that would suggest simply viewing another person's information obtained over unsecured Wi-Fi network through a program like Firesheep is illegal, but he believes it is.

Other legal scholars have argued that it's more ambiguous.

Jonathan Gordon, a Los Angeles attorney who consults for internet companies, told Computerworld that there is no expectation of privacy on an unsecured wireless network, and wiretapping laws make an exception for that.

Think of an unsecured network like a crowded airport lobby. When you shout to someone across the lobby, there's no expectation of privacy for what you're yelling. Being on an unsecured Wi-Fi network, like the kind you'll find at many coffee houses and internet cafes, is the electronic version of being in a crowded airport lobby.

But there's no debate if a person's information gathered with Firesheep or other tools is used to make a post or tweet without the account user's consent. That is illegal and considered stealing someone's identity, according to McKenna.

Butler, however, would likely be held harmless if someone uses Firesheep to commit an illegal act.

"The maker of the crowbar isn't guilty of burglary because a burglar uses it to break into a house," McKenna said. "It's not the creator of the tool that's liable; it's the user of the tool."

Butler said he's not an expert in wiretapping laws but believes sites like Facebook are responsible for the information they keep and should be held liable for not protecting that information.

"Every website that is dealing with personal information and a user account really should be using encryption for everything," he said. "That's really answer."

He adds that using a virtual private network will also prevent Firesheep from capturing your network traffic.

Butler cautions everyone who thinks that simply putting a password on a Wi-Fi network will offer complete protection. He says it doesn't.

If the Firesheep user is using a common or shared user name or password to gain access to a network, anyone else using the same user name and password could be subjected to hijacking.

---

Other tips and precautions:

- Look for an "https" in the address bar of the website you're visiting. It may be there when you log into the website, but if it's not there after you've logged in, anything you send could be easily hijacked by someone using Firesheep.

- Sites that keep an "https" in the address bar during the entire session are using encryption and cannot be accessed with Firesheep. Banks commonly use "https" for the user's entire online session.

- If you are on an open and unsecured Wi-Fi or wired network, do not go to sites that require a login to access your information. Looking at sites that require no action on your part should not compromise your privacy.

- Beware that any communication you send over an unsecured Wi-Fi network has the potential of being viewed by anyone else on that network.
[/quote]
 
Jonathan Gordon, a Los Angeles attorney who consults for internet companies, told Computerworld that there is no expectation of privacy on an unsecured wireless network, and wiretapping laws make an exception for that.

Get/setup an SSH Tunnel (Socks 5 Proxy).

Nothing stops you from manually entering https when using facebook as the links on the page are relative. So if you visit facebook, look in the url bar and change to https://facebook.com, or copy and paste the URLs.

Though this could be fixed with a simple Firefox plugin that rewrites all urls to HTTPS for facebook/twitter. Maybe I'll write one. Wait, here's one: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5064/

Include Pattern: http\:\/\/www.(facebook|twitter|myspace)(.*)

Redirect: https://$1$2

and

Include Pattern: http\:\/\/(facebook|twitter|myspace)(.*)

Redirect: https://$1$2
 
Atreides said:
Get/setup an SSH Tunnel (Socks 5 Proxy).

Nothing stops you from manually entering https when using facebook as the links on the page are relative. So if you visit facebook, look in the url bar and change to https://facebook.com, or copy and paste the URLs.

Good noting the ready fix and a way of configuring to regularly ensure HTTPS connections. The question is why Facebook and Twitter have done everything but close this gaping hole in all their pontificating on privacy? Or as Eric Butler better elucidates (and your solution highlights)...

[quote author="Eric Butler"]
Firesheep
_http://codebutler.com/firesheep

....
This is a widely known problem that has been talked about to death, yet very popular websites continue to fail at protecting their users. The only effective fix for this problem is full end-to-end encryption, known on the web as HTTPS or SSL. Facebook is constantly rolling out new "privacy" features in an endless attempt to quell the screams of unhappy users, but what's the point when someone can just take over an account entirely? Twitter forced all third party developers to use OAuth then immediately released (and promoted) a new version of their insecure website. When it comes to user privacy, SSL is the elephant in the room.
...
[/quote]
 
The question is why Facebook and Twitter have done everything but close this gaping hole in all their pontificating on privacy?

Because this isn't considered a gaping hole. It's not actually a problem with the internet or facebook but with the promiscuous nature of local networks.

You have to understand, that until recently, a lot about cryptography was kept hidden and even outlawed, so many computer engineers don't really know much about it.

The weakest part of a network is local, once it gets out on the information super highway, it's a lot more difficult to listen into requests short of jacking into the network physically. Even in the local sphere, a large majority of networks are still wired and private, so it is assumed that someone connected to your local network is trusted. The whole Wifi hotspot/cafe is very very new. There is also an easy solution from the user side, which is the one above, either SSH Proxy, which you should always be using in public, or the url redirect I posted above, better yet, use both!

Solving the problem as it is, i.e. it's an essential design flaw in local networks is really hard, because ALOT of software and modules to software depends on the trust rules of local networks to operate, if you just changed it, more than you can even imagine would break.

Facebook could go through all of their massive codebase and force https while logged in, but that could prove difficult, and you have to look at it from a more realistic stand point: If you go to a cafe and someone picks your pocket, it's not the cafe's fault, it's yours. That sounds unfair, and computers seem to be one of the few places were people demand exceptional treatment. The burden is on you to know the risks, and to find solutions, and if you don't/can't. Tough titty. In the same way if you can't protect your wallet, don't go out, if you can't protect your computer, don't have one. And I say this as a person who has been a victim of both.

Finally, from a conspiratorial standpoint, I don't think it would be closed, eavesdropping from homeland security/CIA is just easier with the way it is.

The only person you should be angry at, is the idiots who created firesheep in the first place, now any yahoo can do it, whereas before, only those with a lot of knowledge and experience even knew this hole existed, and it was functional. They won't close the hole, because they can't, and it would take reams of writing to explain why they can't. Maybe facebook will redirect to https, but that's just one site. But fairly soon a decent RSA crack soft will come out by another couple of idiots trying to prove something and then that fix won't work. In reality, all he did was make matters worse, Eric Butler and Ian Gallagher were just smart enough to be stupid.
 
[quote author="Matt Markovich, komotv.com"]

"It's like you are in my house and I did not invite you," said a surprised Sarah Dooley.
[/quote]

If she were really aware of the situation, she would have said:

"It's like I took all of the furniture out of my living room, set it up right in the middle of central park, just like in my house. And then doing what I always do in the privacy of my own home: surf the web sitting on the couch in my underwear. And then someone walking around in the park, came right in, walked on my carpet, sat down in the recliner over there, and said: "Hey, how YOU doin'?" "How DARE they!?!"


There is no such thing as privacy on the 'net. This is only news to her because she had an unrealistic idea of what she was actually doing.

It's the same as the old party lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_%28telephony%29, where phones were on the same line, and you could pick it up and listen in to others' conversation. People didn't do that out of respect, or did so anyway because they were nosy parkers. But then everyone knew this was going on, and conversed accordingly.

The main problem is people have an expectation of privacy (assumed through ignorance) where none exists.

Sure, you'd have to have a bit of tech savvy to make it this easy for everybody, but at least now people are a little more aware than before, and might converse accordingly.

It's the same thing as "hackers versus script kiddies".

Whatever people think they lost because of this, was lost a long, long time ago. They just didn't know it.

The thing is, though, is that people may not care about that anymore. They're gonna do what they want to do, and won't care who knows it. Seems to be the case with the denizens of FB, et al.


In the end, it may be the way to go. Back to open community, essentially.
 
Atreides said:
The only person you should be angry at, is the idiots who created firesheep in the first place, now any yahoo can do it, whereas before, only those with a lot of knowledge and experience even knew this hole existed, and it was functional. They won't close the hole, because they can't, and it would take reams of writing to explain why they can't. Maybe facebook will redirect to https, but that's just one site. But fairly soon a decent RSA crack soft will come out by another couple of idiots trying to prove something and then that fix won't work. In reality, all he did was make matters worse, Eric Butler and Ian Gallagher were just smart enough to be stupid.

Posting the story was in no way intended to promote computer terrorism, and sorry for failing to discover that connotation before posting. The Firesheep story resonated with my sense of how Sott.net/Cassiopaea.org delve deep to expose compromises in knowledge-bases humans work with while bringing to light ways of living with greater integrity. I think its telling that Gmail went HTTPS over the summer, and with FB stepping up to the email game it seems like the SSL refactor writing is on the wall, but probably they don't need peon engineers exposing their deficiencies. So please pardon me for offending anybody's better sense of how to protect privacy and inadvertantly advertising means that might subvert it.
 
daveOS said:
Posting the story was in no way intended to promote computer terrorism, and sorry for failing to discover that connotation before posting. The Firesheep story resonated with my sense of how Sott.net/Cassiopaea.org delve deep to expose compromises in knowledge-bases humans work with while bringing to light ways of living with greater integrity. I think its telling that Gmail went HTTPS over the summer, and with FB stepping up to the email game it seems like the SSL refactor writing is on the wall, but probably they don't need peon engineers exposing their deficiencies. So please pardon me for offending anybody's better sense of how to protect privacy and inadvertantly advertising means that might subvert it.

I wasn't suggesting that you were, or did anything wrong, you didn't, and it led to some learning and a new addon for redirecting to HTTPs all good things. It's important though to ask why a person did something, why did these guys do this? Was it really to help people, or was it to look super smart and try to narcissisticly bully FB. I think it was alot of ego and hubris involved because it's not about facebook, facebook will eventually switch stuff to SSL, just like everyone else, but then some idiot will come along and point out how SSL really isn't as secure as you think, no one will listen, then he will produce a tool to crack it to "make those idiots recognize how awesome he is."

As for the DA and his ridiculous crowbar analogy, he shows that he doesn't understand the thing at all. A crowbar has a lot of uses, and it was built for those other uses, not for breaking into houses.

Firesheep was built specifically to commit a computer crime, the fact that it could be used as a penetration tool is secondary, the creators made and distributed it with the intent to encourage and enable criminal activity. Therefore they are criminals, and worse, they think they are heroes, when in fact all they have managed to do is put a point and click tool in the hands of every psycho stalker ex, or crazy troll/griefer, because those are the only people who would actually use it on any scale worth noting.

People like this make me so angry, because for them it's all about the audience, they don't expose a security flaw to people who can actually deal with it, or at least understand it, they are just showing off to an uniformed and impotent public, and in doing so providing psychopaths with tools to commit criminal activities with a click of a mouse. If anything, every harassed person on facebook should thank these two half-wits for enabling cyber stalking and identity theft all in the name of what is right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and these two dudes are gonna fry, OSIT, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
Atreides said:
Firesheep was built specifically to commit a computer crime, the fact that it could be used as a penetration tool is secondary, the creators made and distributed it with the intent to encourage and enable criminal activity.

Maybe that is so, but the crimes were already being committed. The only thing different now, is that less smart and/or educated people can make use of it. The bar of chaos has been lowered in this sphere, in other words. But think about this. If only a person with the necessary skill was capable before, is that ANY indication that they were honorable?

No, of course, not. What it means, is that they may have been stalking many people, but had better knowledge on how to stay hidden.

Now bring in the galloping hordes. Sloppy discrepancies will be noticed. The not-so-savvy people trying to be social through this "service" might see something is afoot, and re-evaluate. Not a bad thing, IMHO. They might not give a hoot. What kind of damage can really be done? Imagine a wall post that says something outrageous: a person's "friends" will call them out on it. That person will say, "Hey NO, I didn't write that!" People that have known this person outside of the virtual world would probably be able to tell the difference. Others may not. It's open.

Is there a potential loss here? What's being lost by possible defacement of one's virtual "presence/impression" to others' eyes? Seems to me your friends should be able to see the difference.


Atreides said:
Therefore they are criminals, and worse, they think they are heroes, when in fact all they have managed to do is put a point and click tool in the hands of every psycho stalker ex, or crazy troll/griefer, because those are the only people who would actually use it on any scale worth noting.

People like this make me so angry, because for them it's all about the audience, they don't expose a security flaw to people who can actually deal with it, or at least understand it, they are just showing off to an uniformed and impotent public, and in doing so providing psychopaths with tools to commit criminal activities with a click of a mouse. If anything, every harassed person on facebook should thank these two half-wits for enabling cyber stalking and identity theft all in the name of what is right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and these two dudes are gonna fry, OSIT, and good riddance to bad rubbish.

I certainly understand your sentiment. But you know, there is no security through obscurity. Not when someone pays attention. And there's always someone paying attention, even if we/me/you/us/anybody isn't.

In this case, people thought they were secure or private, when they weren't. They had a false sense of security that has been there for a while. Give a tool like this to the masses, and it may turn some lights on. For good or bad.

It's only exposing what was already there. You need to examine why this bugs you so much.

False security is always worse than knowing that there is no security. Here, ignorance is the main factor.

I'm sure they'll patch their system with false security soon.

;D
 
Firesheep was built specifically to commit a computer crime, the fact that it could be used as a penetration tool is secondary, the creators made and distributed it with the intent to encourage and enable criminal activity.

I completely disagree with above.
That tool was built TO SHOW weaknesses in various aspects and show how little was done in that area.

Just go through authors blog.

__http://codebutler.com/?c=1

The risks of insecure websites have been known for years, yet over the years little to nothing has been done about what has become an incredibly widespread problem. In the three weeks since Firesheep was released, there has been some encouraging news that companies are waking up to the reality that HTTP is dead, and that full end-to-end encryption (HTTPS/SSL) is no longer optional but rather a requirement of doing business online.

It was always possible for attackers to perform such attacks , and they were doing it with no regret. It was and is VERY easy to perform such attacks without firesheep. This tool only automates the process.
IMO author deserves big respect and applause for doing great job. This is classic example of how hackers image is being distorted and twisted by media.
 
Atreides said:
I wasn't suggesting that you were, or did anything wrong, you didn't, and it led to some learning and a new addon for redirecting to HTTPs all good things. It's important though to ask why a person did something, why did these guys do this? Was it really to help people, or was it to look super smart and try to narcissisticly bully FB. I think it was alot of ego and hubris involved because it's not about facebook, facebook will eventually switch stuff to SSL, just like everyone else, but then some idiot will come along and point out how SSL really isn't as secure as you think, no one will listen, then he will produce a tool to crack it to "make those idiots recognize how awesome he is."

What I hear Eric Butler saying and how I see him behaving in the video interview doesn't sync with my experiences of grandstanding software engineers jacked on code contexts they've uniquely cracked seeking adulation for one-dimensional insights while neglecting hosts of interdependancies. In the interview I don't see Eric Butler emoting the glib smugness of narcissistic software engineers I'm familiar with. I think Butler squirms too much when the interviewer patronizes him for his expertise. When detailing his creation, I read him exuding awareness many developers will crack open his source to see he's wired together readily available components capturing standard streams parsed into well established structure definitions (the type of thing now a routine exercise amidst computer science fundamentals becoming common amongst the blossoming engineering community). It seems to me both the interviewer and Butler are sensitized to the volatile nature of Firesheep's engineering effort in tandem with an urgency they feel to making people aware King-with-no-clothes Zuckerberg suckers masses into walking around in their skivvies.

drygol said:
That tool was built TO SHOW weaknesses in various aspects and show how little was done in that area.

I appreciate this distinction. I think the Firesheep developers clearly illustrate how the FB PTB have jeopardized users by capitalizing on weak architecture in the rush to take command of social networking. I hear the concern about generally enabling spying on others, but to me the awareness Firesheep raises outweighs the risks. Exposing how the PTB encourage people to obliviously forfeit control seems close to the heart of concerns shared out here, or so I see Firesheep in kindred terms.

Personally I took the Firesheep effort as more of an attempted wake-up call to the masses mesmerized by the FB phenomenon. Similar to Bill Gates responding to Larry King's recent question what Gates thought of Facebook with, "I don't get it.", I know many software engineers rolling their eyes at the mundane FB model wondering what all the fuss is about and why people scurry to feed their personal information to it with all its deficiencies. As such I suspect more than a few software engineers found amusement in the prank nature of Firesheep's wielding of engineering skill to spotlight Zuckerberg's transparent attire.

I think the whole situation highlights how obscure "privacy" has become to people, and the serious challenges electronic communications pose for people's private perceptions ...

Azur said:
If she were really aware of the situation, she would have said:

"It's like I took all of the furniture out of my living room, set it up right in the middle of central park, just like in my house. And then doing what I always do in the privacy of my own home: surf the web sitting on the couch in my underwear. And then someone walking around in the park, came right in, walked on my carpet, sat down in the recliner over there, and said: "Hey, how YOU doin'?" "How DARE they!?!"

There is no such thing as privacy on the 'net. This is only news to her because she had an unrealistic idea of what she was actually doing.

Personally I think the 'living-room in Central Park' reality might actually dawn when the vision the technocrats tout comes involving private computing moving to cloud platforms where enterprises will take care of everything and people will only have to worry about keeping dumb terminals functioning to maintain access. But as it stands now we have degrees of privacy between ourselves and our friends and neighbors, degrees of privacy between ourselves and hackers, and degrees of privacy between ourselves and secret team spooks. Who has access to what, and who's paying attention to what appear to be factors very much in flux. Maybe some bored spooks might get assigned to monitor my internet meanderings, but I question their ability to compile and correlate the range of interests I exercise across the various systems I work. While my activity undoubtedly gets recorded somewhere, inevitable gaps in organizational data models pose problems for assembling detailed understandings of any given person. Masses of anonymous identities, arrays of focal points accessible to any given user, and myriad manners in which people may interact with information pose serious challenges to predictive software engineering so I imagine secret teams assigned to electronically profiling people to be similarly impaired. While I realize PTB likely hold keys to monitoring my every move, I suspect powers stuck in this time/space continuum with me to be hampered by the hordes exceeding their ranks, which I think leaves me mostly exposed to them as an unreliable statistic.
 
Using FB in order to follow the SOTT/Cassiopaea activities

Hi,

i want to ask about the recent development in this field.

Yesterday i wanted to listen to the first SOTT radio broadcast and put some comment up but it turned out, if i am not mistaken (am I?), that one needs to be registered on FB to be able to do those things.
Since I have been supporting OpenSource technologies (using only Ubuntu Linux and free software) for quiet a while and avoiding the products of big companies like MS, Google and others to the highest possible degree, this is something i need to deal with and maybe reconsider. I suppose all the big social network platforms are running through the more secure HTTPS now (though I did not really pay attention to this) otherwise SOTT/Cass would not even come close to them (that is what i feel, it just maybe a wrong assumption) so the big question is:

How does the QFG deals with this issue and what are the weak points one has to look at to avoid possible security breaches?
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom