• cum@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What is he talking about, public WiFi can easily poison and monitor your DNS requests (most people don’t know or use encrypted DNS), and there’s still tons of non-https traffic leaks all over the place that are plain text. Even if encrypted, there’s still deep packet inspection. VPNs can mitigate DPI techniques and shift the trust from an easily snoopable public WiFi to the VPN’s more trustworthy exit servers.

    This guy really needs to elaborate on what he’s trying to say when the cyber security field very much disagrees with this stance. I’m not a huge fan of Proton, but they aren’t doing anything wrong here. You should use it for public Wi-Fi.

    • Lucy :3@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      most people don’t know or use encrypted DNS

      But a cybersecurity expert does. That’s the point. If you know those things, VPNs become obsolete, for most people. So why not teach people about it, instead of promoting VPNs?

      And can you really trust an extremely profit focused company, that is built on user data, more than your local Café? If you’re in China, sure, use a VPN, they’re the lesser evil. But most spots don’t have the resources or expertise to analyze and sell or otherwise misuse your logs. VPN companies not only do, most rely on it.

      If you’re a highly targeted person, it’s another story, but in that case your only hope is Tor or a new identity.

    • Fontasia@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      42 minutes ago

      Yeah, while it is true, lots of VPN companies are grifts just buying VPS’s and installing OpenVPN, this “Cyber security expert” puts far too much faith in HTTPS and probably never seen a lecture from the Black Hat conference

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Yup. You can grab any unencrypted data passed between the user’s browser and a server literally out of thin air when they’re connected to an open access point. You sit happily at the Starbucks with your laptop, sniffing them WiFi packets and grabbing things off of them.

      Oh and you have no idea what the myriad of apps you’re using are connecting to and whether that endpoint is encrypted. Do not underestimate the ability of firms to produce software at the absolute lowest cost with corners and walls missing.

      If I was someone who was to make money off of scamming people, one thing I’d have tried to do is to rig portable sniffers at public locations with large foot traffic and open WiFi like train stations, airports, etc. Throw em around then filter for interesting stuff. Oh here’s some personal info. Oh there’s a session token for some app. Let me see what else I can get from that app for that person.

    • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’m not even an expert in this stuff, but with a tool I found online I demonstrated that it was easy to snoop people’s passwords on my school’s wifi networks back in the day. It took minutes.

    • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      How is DPI a problem if it’s encrypted? That would only work if the attacker had installed their CA cert on your client machine, right?

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I’m doing DPI on my own network and I can still view TLS certificate fingerprints and some metadata that provides a good educated guess as to what a traffic flow contains. It certainly better that it’s encrypted, but there is a little information that leaks in metadata. I think that’s what was meant.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          True, but this is generally not useful information to anyone. They can see you’re visiting bank.com, but they still can’t see your bank details.

          It might be useful if they’re trying to target you for phishing, but a targeted attack is extremely unlikely.

          Also, any wireless equipment from the past 15 years or so supports client isolation.

      • orange@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I think it might be confusion between inspecting plaintext metadata like SNI vs actually inspecting encrypted contents (e.g. HTTPS content, headers, etc.).