Herding Firesheep In NYC — Do Users Care?

An anonymous reader writes "Following the Firesheep uproar, I spent some time telling people who don't read Slashdot about the vulnerability that open WiFi networks create in what seemed like the most effective way possible: by sidejacking their accounts and sending them messages about how it happened. The results were surprising — would users really rather leave their accounts open to intruders rather than stay off Facebook at Starbucks? The link recounts the experience, and also lists some rough numbers of how many accounts could be compromised at a popular NY Starbucks location."

Comments

Interestingly, the author of TFA never considers

[brokeninside]

... that some users might weigh the costs of security against the costs of being insecure and opt to be insecure. As an example, I don't generally lock the doors of my car. I've found that if I do, people that want to get in when I'm not there break the windows and take what they want anyway. Locking my car doors merely causes the extra headache of replacing the glass alongside whatevever gets stolen. Yet the author of TFA would consider me a moron for being within the universe of people that have an intruder yet still refuse to lock their doors.

False sense of security

[cappp]

I wonder if the problem isn't linked to the spread of specific remedy rather than actual understanding. We've all told confused relatives and friends to delete random messages appearing in their accounts, and to avoid clicking on links or buying products that promise some online miracle. That's possibly what those last hold-outs in TFA were reflexivly doing. In effect we're trained people to behave in a way that was understood to improve security, without providing them the context to protect themselves in any other situation. Like teaching a child not to stick their hand into the sitting-room fireplace but failing to mention that stoves, heaters, and engines all get bloody hot too. Hell that's a flawed lesson as well...they should have been taught about heat and burning as concepts. I'm not really sure how to solve the issue though. At the end of the day a large portion of the population lack the skills, time, interest, or motivation to learn about what is becoming the increasingly complicated world of computer security. I'm a proud geek and I couldn't tell you how secure firefox add-ons are, or which virus scanner does the most reliable work, or how the hell to stop random ports blah blah blah

That being said only 5 out of 20 actually ignored the advice. Of those another 1 took a little more effort but finally learned his lesson. That's not bad odds considering.

Denial is bliss

[bl8n8r]

A lot of the time it seems people would rather not know, or be dismissive of their risk because they just simply cannot comprehend the details or do not want to. There is nothing else you can do for them. Someone once said about people: you can explain it to them, they will understand it, and then they will ignore it.

Re:Interestingly, the author of TFA never consider

[IamTheRealMike]

Yes, exactly.

Your kind of thinking is exactly why the software security business routinely finds itself mystified by the behavior of ordinary people. It's not that those people are dumb. It's that some geeks end up with a wildly distorted view of risk. Let's review the risks here:

1. No VPN at an airport or coffee shop. Your session may be hijacked by somebody near by, intuitively this is a pretty unlikely thing. Of course there are idiots everywhere, but then again you might get somebody coming up and harassing you for change or positioning themselves so they can see your screen. Mostly, people are nice and don't do that kind of thing. If they do, you can deal with it quite easily by leaving and going somewhere else.
2. VPN at an airport or coffee shop. Now a hijacker has to actually be tapping the high speed fibre links between your VPNs colo facility and the target. The only people who actually do this is government, and guess what - they can just go to Facebook, Twitter or Amazon and demand co-operation anyway. 99.99% of the populace does not include the government in their daily lives threat model, mostly because you can't do anything about it except move country and most governments, at least in the west, just aren't that bad.
3. Full SSL. Now the people you have to fear are employees of Facebook, Amazon etc and the government. Notice how nothing changed from step 2..

I'd still happily log into Facebook from a coffee shop post-Firesheep because frankly, the chances of me encountering some bizarre creep is very low. If they do steal my session cookie and I notice they are tampering with my account, I can solve this problem by logging out, leaving, and logging back in again somewhere else.

Re:Interestingly, the author of TFA never consider

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your kind of thinking is exactly why the software security business routinely finds itself mystified by the behavior of ordinary people. It's not that those people are dumb. It's that some geeks end up with a wildly distorted view of risk.

In my case, that 'distortion' is the application of automation. Yeah, today very few people are side-jacking facebook. But I can remember when phishing, 411-scams, and even spam were all so rare that those didn't pose a significant risk either. But all of those, and pretty much every significant risk on the net, became problematic due to the application of automation. Side-jacking facebook is ripe for similar automation. And don't think for a second that attacks that are automated will be so blatant that you can easily notice tampering with your account -- that would defeat the purpose of malicious side-jacking in the first place.

Re:Some people don't care

[PatHMV]

Exactly. I rather tire of seeing the self-proclaimed geek elite decrying these users as "stupid" and "ignorant." No, they just have different value systems then the uber-security-conscious. Lots of people in rural areas regularly leave their doors unlocked. Just because a hacker COULD get access to their account at a Starbucks doesn't mean that the odds of it happening at any particular Starbucks at any given time is terribly high.

Was it idiocy for the folks at this Starbucks to stay online on Facebook even after being warned by this hacker? Clearly from the warning he provided, he wasn't intending to do harm to them. You're a nice rural family sitting around the coffee table, and a nice man sticks his head in your door and says "just wanted to let you know, your door is unlocked." Do you expect the folks to get up and run around and lock every door in the house?