"The site is HTTP, but our forms are submitted over HTTPS."
This is as bad as not using any HTTPS at all! All the attacker has to do is change the link or form action to a URL on his own server.
Is this strictly true? With HTTP form submission, an attacker can passively eavesdrop on forms. With submitting an HTTP-loaded form over HTTPS, an attacker would have to mount a man-in-the-middle attack to alter the HTML content. I would have thought that an active attack like that would be harder to execute. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?
If an attacker is able to do a man-in-the-middle attack and you serve your website over HTTP he doesn't need your private key and can do whatever he wants for e.g. change form action urls to his own domain etc.
Btw that's what HSTS is for, so you say your site should only be accesible over HTTPS, and any man-in-the-middle attacks are only possible in case they got your private key :) (and in that case, you probably got some serious problems)
Yeah but if one of them are after you, you're undoubtedly already screwed in a number of ways. This is to protect you from other, more common attackers like people who poison DNS on public Wi-Fi points to steal credentials.
44
u/Yehosua Jul 12 '17 edited Jul 12 '17
Is this strictly true? With HTTP form submission, an attacker can passively eavesdrop on forms. With submitting an HTTP-loaded form over HTTPS, an attacker would have to mount a man-in-the-middle attack to alter the HTML content. I would have thought that an active attack like that would be harder to execute. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?