https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40968
--- Comment #4 from Tyler Romeo <tylerro...@gmail.com> 2012-10-12 04:10:49 UTC --- Yes, but that is irrelevant. If the script is compromised in a MITM attack, the security of the login process does not matter because the attacker will have already taken the user's authentication token (the equivalent of a one-time password). However, consider the case where the script is not compromised. In this case, the authentication data is then sent over plaintext to the API, which opens up another attack vector. While the best thing to do would be to force HTTPS everywhere, that is not always possible or wanted behavior, so at the very least I can have my extension respect $wgSecureLogin by putting authentication data over a secure connection. It's like the question of whether $wgSecureLogin is worthwhile even though the cookies for the session will be sent over HTTP, allowing session hijacking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
