yeah, it's trivial to punch somebody in the face in the morning, all you need to do is to be by their bad in the morning when they are waking up.
[–] mschuster91 1 day ago
[–] bawolff 1 day ago
Physical access to networks isn't that hard to come by.
[–] ForHackernews 1 day ago
You'd be better off just mugging them in the parking lot.
[–] itintheory 1 day ago
Except it won't impact gmail unless you're accessing it through curl. The browsers already distrusted the compromised intermediates via CRL within hours of disclosure, and removed the affected root via update.
[–] jfyi 1 day ago
What if it's the Starbucks at 1730 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 for an extended period of time? Compounded with other security issues like password reuse...
We can always draw a line and say, "that's not practical". The assessment an attacker is likely to do is going to be "is this practical inside my budget for the value I hope to acquire?" or maybe even just "waow, lulz".
[–] paaloeye 1 day ago
Regardless, real bad actors are busy compromising your next `npm install` anyway. Much better reward.
[–] bawolff 1 day ago
If someone has it in for you and hired a high skill attacker, its not a stretch to imagine they compromised your home network.
[–] voidUpdate 1 day ago
[–] dahart 1 day ago
Why are you assuming there isn’t someone else trying to hack you at the next cafe? Actual damage can happen one person at a time, and can occasionally lead to larger scale compromises. Randomizing your location isn’t going to reduce your risk. Now that everyone who’s paying attention knows they can MITM your Mac, you shouldn’t trust any network.
If you think it's not that important, it becomes a critic about TLS and basically saying that ciphers for web traffic are useless.