Xfinity Is Man-in-the-Middle Attacking My Internet(rietta.com)
rietta.com
Xfinity Is Man-in-the-Middle Attacking My Internet
https://rietta.com/blog/comcast-insecure-injection/
303 comments
Only tangentially related, but how is the ADA act looked upon by Americans? The only time I've heard about it as an European was when Stanford (?) was forced by litigation to take entire swathes of free online education offline because it didn't have subtitles. I'm all for making the web more accessible but it really soured me on the notion of such acts and if they are the best way to enforce said accessibility.
I believe this happened at UC Berkeley as well. For what it's worth, neither institution was 'forced' to remove the content. They were obligated to offer the content equally to all users and they chose to not do so because it cost money to create accessible content. While I feel it's unfortunate access to information was lost, I respect and still stand behind the sentiment of the law. Just because you're doing something 'good' doesn't mean you can ignore access needs of protected classes. Especially considering these are institutions with billions of dollars of endowment, funding, and tuition, I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.
> ...I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.
In your mind, is it possible to be on the side of those with the disability and yet still against the ADA?
Put another way, given the two concrete examples mentioned (UCB and Stanford) did actual people with actual disabilities gain greater access to the content that was taken offline (in order to comply with the ADA)? Lots of laws have good intentions and bad effects. I think we should judge them by their effects, not their intentions.
In your mind, is it possible to be on the side of those with the disability and yet still against the ADA?
Put another way, given the two concrete examples mentioned (UCB and Stanford) did actual people with actual disabilities gain greater access to the content that was taken offline (in order to comply with the ADA)? Lots of laws have good intentions and bad effects. I think we should judge them by their effects, not their intentions.
If ADA compliant content requires more resources to produce, allowing something to remain in violation because it’s free seems like a great way to price ADA compliant content out of existence.
That said, perhaps an improvement to the ADA would be budget to help producers of free content to become ADA compliant.
That said, perhaps an improvement to the ADA would be budget to help producers of free content to become ADA compliant.
Most everyday Americans probably know very little about its particulars, though they all know the name. Business owners, especially small business owners, are well aware of its abuse on several fronts, from labeling pets as "emotional support" (fortunately this has been clearly rejected by statute, but people try it anyway), to suing business owners because their wheelchair ramps are the wrong angle, to examples such as the one you mention (which to me was a violation of free speech as well).
I am all for web accessibility, and I think companies and developers should consider it a priority, but I do not think a law like the ADA is a good fit for this issue. The parts of the ADA that are good are the prohibition on actively discriminating against people with disabilities and requiring reasonable changes in policies. Requiring buildings to be rebuilt and taking down websites are excessive infringements on freedom and would best be addressed by the free market.
Here are some links you might find interesting: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/06/11/the-disabli... https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/ada-trolls-and-unintended-... https://www.city-journal.org/beyonce-lawsuit-ada https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/parking-lot-trolls-laws... https://adadefense.net/
I am all for web accessibility, and I think companies and developers should consider it a priority, but I do not think a law like the ADA is a good fit for this issue. The parts of the ADA that are good are the prohibition on actively discriminating against people with disabilities and requiring reasonable changes in policies. Requiring buildings to be rebuilt and taking down websites are excessive infringements on freedom and would best be addressed by the free market.
Here are some links you might find interesting: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/06/11/the-disabli... https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/ada-trolls-and-unintended-... https://www.city-journal.org/beyonce-lawsuit-ada https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/parking-lot-trolls-laws... https://adadefense.net/
How would the free market help increase web accessibility?
It would be one of many possible features firms could compete on. Developing more accessible apps would result in an increased userbase leading to greater revenue (and potentially take you from a perfect competition to monopolistic competition secnario, reducing the elasticity of demand for your product, allowing you to raise the price).
> Developing more accessible apps would result in an increased userbase leading to greater revenue
Only if the marginal cost of developing them is less than the revenue attained by developing them, which is also limited by the amount of funds that disabled people have.
Disabled people existed before ADA, and the reason ADA was popular was because it didn’t make business sense to serve the disabled population. There’s no way construction costs of ADA accessible features of a building will ever be recouped by sales to disabled people needing it.
A free market solution would require the government to give sufficient cash to disabled people, enough to make businesses want to compete for them. But that is also wrought with possibilities for corruption.
Only if the marginal cost of developing them is less than the revenue attained by developing them, which is also limited by the amount of funds that disabled people have.
Disabled people existed before ADA, and the reason ADA was popular was because it didn’t make business sense to serve the disabled population. There’s no way construction costs of ADA accessible features of a building will ever be recouped by sales to disabled people needing it.
A free market solution would require the government to give sufficient cash to disabled people, enough to make businesses want to compete for them. But that is also wrought with possibilities for corruption.
My HOA was sued for some slightly uneven sidewalks and the fact that some people had parked cars that jutted out of their driveways. Plaintiff doesn't live here, has pretty much made a living by such lawsuits. So while I agree with the tenets of the ADA, it's just one more example of how legislated morality will be abused by a small percentage for their own gain. If it were repealed tomorrow I would shrug.
I hear plenty of stories like this out of California. Their enforcement of the ADA is somewhat unique. Instead of having inspections and compliance officers, any wronged party can file a claim and receive ~$4k in compensation. There are plenty of people who make a considerable amount of money as 'freelance' code enforcement.
My issue with this system is the animosity it causes. Panzagl had one interaction with this method and it was enough for them to be ambivalent about the ADA.
A friend of mine does public outreach for an organization for the blind in Seattle, and 99% of ADA non-compliance that they see stems from ignorance and is solved by education.
My issue with this system is the animosity it causes. Panzagl had one interaction with this method and it was enough for them to be ambivalent about the ADA.
A friend of mine does public outreach for an organization for the blind in Seattle, and 99% of ADA non-compliance that they see stems from ignorance and is solved by education.
This is very convenient and self serving logic. Everything will be abused by a small percentage for their own gain. Dismissing the entire ADA because of a few anecdotal examples that were irritating to _you_ is completely nuts when weighed against the massive improvement in quality of life the ADA has created for the millions of disabled Americans.
When you say you'd shrug what you are really saying is that you care about your HOA and don't give a crap about people with disabilities. If you did care you'd be proposing ways to close loopholes like the one Plaintiff was exploiting.
When you say you'd shrug what you are really saying is that you care about your HOA and don't give a crap about people with disabilities. If you did care you'd be proposing ways to close loopholes like the one Plaintiff was exploiting.
Just because someone is entering a seemingly frivolous lawsuit, is it fair that the HOAs sidewalks are inaccessible in general? I feel like it feels wrong because someone is profiting on it but society is more equitable as a result and I don't feel that is an abuse of the legislation.
In fact, if profit drives more people to fight for what's right, then it becomes easier to make the world a better place.
Profit is just one form of incentive that we can align for increasing compliance with directives with a positive social benefit. All incentives are abusable if you design them incorrectly, so I see no reason to vilify profit over other kinds of incentives.
Profit is just one form of incentive that we can align for increasing compliance with directives with a positive social benefit. All incentives are abusable if you design them incorrectly, so I see no reason to vilify profit over other kinds of incentives.
I used to live in a neighborhood that frequently had un-shoveled/un-salted sidewalks and cars parked across the sidewalk. As someone who walks a dog, it's fucking obnoxious to have to wander around in two feet of snow because someone didn't want to park on the street, or slip and fall on an unsafe sidewalk.
The disabled aren't the only people who care. Take care of your sidewalk, it's your legal fucking responsibility.
The disabled aren't the only people who care. Take care of your sidewalk, it's your legal fucking responsibility.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In America, due to a distrust of bureaucracy and the fact that enforcement or lack thereof can be up to the willpower of the executive, establishing liability via the judicial system is an effective enforcing mechanism.
Absent liability, the other alternatives are some sort of executive branch enforcer (which does things to the whim of the executive) or some kind of onerous licensing/certification scheme (e.g. doctors), and both are IMO worse outcomes.
Absent liability, the other alternatives are some sort of executive branch enforcer (which does things to the whim of the executive) or some kind of onerous licensing/certification scheme (e.g. doctors), and both are IMO worse outcomes.
All tools can be used for good or ill. The ADA has made the US a whole lot more accessible for many folks from wheelchair ramps everywhere to disability accommodations at fun parks.
The litigation is over. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case a few weeks ago. The "Petition DENIED" at the bottom of that status page is referring to the petition for cert.
That is inaccurate for many reasons.
The Supreme Court declined to overturn the Ninth Circuit, because there was no circuit split or other issue of such urgency to require the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled (somewhat) in favor of the plaintiffs, and remanded the matter to the district court having reversed the lower court on some questions of law.
I think it is still a live controversy in the district court, but it seems likely that the plaintiffs will win on the merits or obtain a settlement.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/15/1...
The Supreme Court declined to overturn the Ninth Circuit, because there was no circuit split or other issue of such urgency to require the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled (somewhat) in favor of the plaintiffs, and remanded the matter to the district court having reversed the lower court on some questions of law.
I think it is still a live controversy in the district court, but it seems likely that the plaintiffs will win on the merits or obtain a settlement.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/15/1...
You wrote "That is inaccurate", but you didn't cite a single inaccuracy in the gp comment. You wrote some other sentences, but they don't appear to contradict anything gp wrote.
The GP claimed litigation was over. The parent claims it isn't over. Oftentimes higher courts decide a specific question pertaining to a case, not the whole case. Just because a higher court clarifies something doesn't mean litigation is over - it means the lower courts can continue with that point now clarified and/or corrected.
Thank you for the further explanation. I see what you mean.
The litigation is on going. The Supreme Court declined to hear the petition to essentially throw the case out, in effect paving the way for trial between the plantiff and Dominoes.
Our industry was attempted to be shaken down by hacks filing frivolous lawsuits against single owners.
This is a criminal case, I for one cannot accept a financiap repercussion for this.
This is copyright infringement.
>> 17 U.S.C. § 106
How many HTML files have they willfully[1] modified?
[1] why willful? They published the technical details of how they modify the original work in an RFC.
>> 17 U.S.C. § 106
...the owner of copyright under this title has
the exclusive rights to do and to authorize
any of the following:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon
the copyrighted work;
How many HTML files have they willfully[1] modified?
[1] why willful? They published the technical details of how they modify the original work in an RFC.
I'm not sure you want to make this argument. If this is copyright infringement, then ad-blockers and GreaseMonkey are also copyright infringement.
This can be a crummy, anti-consumer practice without having to invoke copyright.
This can be a crummy, anti-consumer practice without having to invoke copyright.
Copyright concerns copies. When Comcast injects their code in a page before delivering it to me, they have distributed a copy which is subject to copyright laws.
When I download a page and modify it for myself without distributing the modified copy, it is not subject to copyright laws.
When I download a page and modify it for myself without distributing the modified copy, it is not subject to copyright laws.
I'm not sure they are equivalent. One is being done by someone else perhaps without your knowledge (most people are not tech savvy and won't even understand what Comcast has done). The other is being done by you explicitly to your own "copy" of the work. I don't think the ad-blocker argument would hold up in court.
But this line of reasoning got me thinking...I've seen some pretty loose interpretations of the CFAA over the years. I'm not sure what the law says about Comcast's privileged position as an ISP, but I would think that in most cases, specifically altering data between two networks counts as unauthorized access, no?
But this line of reasoning got me thinking...I've seen some pretty loose interpretations of the CFAA over the years. I'm not sure what the law says about Comcast's privileged position as an ISP, but I would think that in most cases, specifically altering data between two networks counts as unauthorized access, no?
In this case, one could argue that adblocking is like using a marker to blackout sentences you don't want to read in your personal copy of a book or newspaper.
The same as using a blue light filter on your computer (modifying the output of every program, copyrighted work, website, and text) vs wearing blue-blocker (yellow) sunglasses to the movie theater or library.
The same as using a blue light filter on your computer (modifying the output of every program, copyrighted work, website, and text) vs wearing blue-blocker (yellow) sunglasses to the movie theater or library.
> If this is copyright infringement, then ad-blockers and GreaseMonkey are also copyright infringement.
Modifying your private copy and redistributing a modified copy are two different things.
I can't find any Supreme Court decision, but the Ninth Circuit has ruled on this and it's found that ad-skipping is legal:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/10340723925/appea...
There's a German Supreme Court case that explicitly says the AdBlock Plus browser extension is legal, however:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-trial-adblocking/...
Modifying your private copy and redistributing a modified copy are two different things.
I can't find any Supreme Court decision, but the Ninth Circuit has ruled on this and it's found that ad-skipping is legal:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/10340723925/appea...
There's a German Supreme Court case that explicitly says the AdBlock Plus browser extension is legal, however:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-trial-adblocking/...
Not really the same thing at all. Comcast is modifying content, and profiting off a service that delivers that derivative content. That is clear willful infringement. User modifying their own content locally is not infringement, since the content is not redelivered or sold.
You're free to tear up your copy of Harry Potter once you buy it from the bookstore, but you're not free to (as the bookstore) add a prologue to every book and sell it as Harry Potter by Comcast.
You're free to tear up your copy of Harry Potter once you buy it from the bookstore, but you're not free to (as the bookstore) add a prologue to every book and sell it as Harry Potter by Comcast.
I think that wouldn't apply because you are not distributing your modified version.
Ripping a page out of a book isn't copyright infringement. Ad-blocking is equivalent.
Interesting. Here's some counterpoints.
1. Can it be considered "modified enough" to be considered derivative if it's the original file, plus some Javascript to provide a pop-up notification?
2. These MITM alerts are typically customer-beneficial and customer-relationship-oriented; the purpose is to alert that the user is getting close to a bandwidth cap. Similarly, there's current talk of somehow making ISPs or service providers deliver EAS alerts. Comcast already has to do this for EAS alerts on its television service. Does Comcast violate copyright when it interrupts a television program to show a federally required EAS alert?
3. Captive portals are a well-established instance where a page requested is not what's delivered. No one is accusing them of copyright infringement.
1. Can it be considered "modified enough" to be considered derivative if it's the original file, plus some Javascript to provide a pop-up notification?
2. These MITM alerts are typically customer-beneficial and customer-relationship-oriented; the purpose is to alert that the user is getting close to a bandwidth cap. Similarly, there's current talk of somehow making ISPs or service providers deliver EAS alerts. Comcast already has to do this for EAS alerts on its television service. Does Comcast violate copyright when it interrupts a television program to show a federally required EAS alert?
3. Captive portals are a well-established instance where a page requested is not what's delivered. No one is accusing them of copyright infringement.
> to provide a pop-up notification?
The fact that you can easily describe what their modifications do as a new feature (w notification) that wasn't part of the original work is stro9ng evidence that their modifications were transforative.
> These MITM alerts are typically customer-beneficial and customer-relationship-oriented;
That doesn't give them the right to make a derivative work based on my webpage. I'm not their customer!
> the purpose is to alert that the user is getting close to a bandwidth cap
So what? Communicating with their customers doesn't require violating the copyrights of many 3rd parties. 3rd parties shouldn't even be involved.
Instead of vandalizing a lot of webpages, they could:
* Simply send only their own page instead of appending of trying to mix it into other people's copyright protected works. This is how captive portals worked ever since they were invented.
* Instead of trying to notify their customers in-band with the service they provide, send any necessary warnings to the phone number (or other contract information) listed on the customer's account. This is what many businesses did in the past, and many still do.
* (re: bandwidth limits) They could stop trying to impose artificial scarcity and use a business model with more honest pricing.
* They could add a small message display and alert light (and buzzer?) to the modem/router.
The fact that you can easily describe what their modifications do as a new feature (w notification) that wasn't part of the original work is stro9ng evidence that their modifications were transforative.
> These MITM alerts are typically customer-beneficial and customer-relationship-oriented;
That doesn't give them the right to make a derivative work based on my webpage. I'm not their customer!
> the purpose is to alert that the user is getting close to a bandwidth cap
So what? Communicating with their customers doesn't require violating the copyrights of many 3rd parties. 3rd parties shouldn't even be involved.
Instead of vandalizing a lot of webpages, they could:
* Simply send only their own page instead of appending of trying to mix it into other people's copyright protected works. This is how captive portals worked ever since they were invented.
* Instead of trying to notify their customers in-band with the service they provide, send any necessary warnings to the phone number (or other contract information) listed on the customer's account. This is what many businesses did in the past, and many still do.
* (re: bandwidth limits) They could stop trying to impose artificial scarcity and use a business model with more honest pricing.
* They could add a small message display and alert light (and buzzer?) to the modem/router.
> 1. Can it be considered "modified enough" to be considered derivative if it's the original file, plus some Javascript to provide a pop-up notification?
They're altering the functionality of it, fairly substantially imo. I would argue that copyright should protect your IP from being subverted to serve additional, annoying pop-ups.
> Does Comcast violate copyright when it interrupts a television program to show a federally required EAS alert?
In that case Comcast is not altering the contents of the work, it is replacing the content with other content. I don't think that's a violation of copyright at all.
> 3. Captive portals are a well-established instance where a page requested is not what's delivered. No one is accusing them of copyright infringement.
Again, they are not modifying the returned content, they are refusing to display the requested content and returning alternative content.
They're altering the functionality of it, fairly substantially imo. I would argue that copyright should protect your IP from being subverted to serve additional, annoying pop-ups.
> Does Comcast violate copyright when it interrupts a television program to show a federally required EAS alert?
In that case Comcast is not altering the contents of the work, it is replacing the content with other content. I don't think that's a violation of copyright at all.
> 3. Captive portals are a well-established instance where a page requested is not what's delivered. No one is accusing them of copyright infringement.
Again, they are not modifying the returned content, they are refusing to display the requested content and returning alternative content.
One of the problems with this is the same as any other bad behaviours companies often do that are indistinguishable from an attack, such as asking for your PIN on the phone, or sending account-related e-mails with links: They condition the user to expect this is "legitimate".
As the article points out, an attacker could do something on an unrelated web server that injects this same notice (using the same code [1] as a basis), with a link that says something like "Extend your limit for free by 1GB", which loads a fake "Xfinity login" in a pop-up to phish their Xfinity account credentials. Because the link was presented using the familiar UI, it could easily trick someone and it would be nearly impossible for most users to realize it's not legitimately Xfinity.
[1] https://rietta.com/blog/comcast-insecure-injection/injection...
As the article points out, an attacker could do something on an unrelated web server that injects this same notice (using the same code [1] as a basis), with a link that says something like "Extend your limit for free by 1GB", which loads a fake "Xfinity login" in a pop-up to phish their Xfinity account credentials. Because the link was presented using the familiar UI, it could easily trick someone and it would be nearly impossible for most users to realize it's not legitimately Xfinity.
[1] https://rietta.com/blog/comcast-insecure-injection/injection...
I have first-hand knowledge about how Comcast's content injection happens. (they'd prefer to call it "User Messaging") I'm sure you'll find the same ability from several ISPs because they all purchased a network appliance that does the content injection.
One question people are asking here: does it work over HTTPS. No it does't work over HTTPS, but if the page requests content via HTTP it is possible.
Interestingly enough, the technique is very similar to what Edward Snowden revealed as Quantum Insert, where HTTP requests monitored by the ISP and are intercepted and another web server (the network appliance in question) is able to respond more quickly. It starts with a very fast response that leads to a 302 redirect. The network appliance will then serve up a modified version of a file (usually a JS asset). The injected JS will then query the network appliance for "messages" and show them if the user is "eligible" to receive them.
One question people are asking here: does it work over HTTPS. No it does't work over HTTPS, but if the page requests content via HTTP it is possible.
Interestingly enough, the technique is very similar to what Edward Snowden revealed as Quantum Insert, where HTTP requests monitored by the ISP and are intercepted and another web server (the network appliance in question) is able to respond more quickly. It starts with a very fast response that leads to a 302 redirect. The network appliance will then serve up a modified version of a file (usually a JS asset). The injected JS will then query the network appliance for "messages" and show them if the user is "eligible" to receive them.
Could you elaborate on this a bit please?
What is the appliance called? Do all HTTP requests flow through it and anything else bypasses it? Does it store or log any of the requests or responses?
What is the appliance called? Do all HTTP requests flow through it and anything else bypasses it? Does it store or log any of the requests or responses?
I'm hesitant to name the device, because thus far the company who makes it has escaped scrutiny, and I'm not the one who's going to change that right now. There was an Ars Technica article a few years ago that made reference to Xfinity doing this to notify people that they were using a hotspot. They had a follow-up article that nobody read where they pointed to the company that made the device, but they slightly misidentified them. Mostly people were upset at Comcast. The appliance is used at Cox, Shaw, and many other major ISPs all over the world: Europe, Latin America, The Middle East, Asia. There are basically two major companies operating in this space, as far as I know.
It is capable of monitoring ALL http requests, which is only about <5% of traffic going through an ISP. The more traffic you have, the more devices you need, but one can take care of a LOT of traffic, and I believe it can run as a VM. I'm not sure how it works as a VM exactly, because it also contains a custom Ethernet driver.
The same device directs people to the captive portal (if i'm not mistaken) used for logging into xfinity, or other public wifi from other providers.
Because performance is a high priority, the logging is minimal, but it keeps track of who's been served a message and doesn't collect any PII. The device is capable of serving any content, even causing a request from a third-party. So, it's possible that the content that gets ultimately injected is able to do whatever... anything a malicious advertisement would be capable of doing.
Your message eligibility is highly configurable, and can include metrics such as whether you visit certain sites, and possibly even your physical location.
There's a couple phases. First the network appliance injects so light code, using the Man-On-The-Side 302 redirect method. Once that's done, the injected code is probably going to request additional content after checking if you qualify for a message.
It is capable of monitoring ALL http requests, which is only about <5% of traffic going through an ISP. The more traffic you have, the more devices you need, but one can take care of a LOT of traffic, and I believe it can run as a VM. I'm not sure how it works as a VM exactly, because it also contains a custom Ethernet driver.
The same device directs people to the captive portal (if i'm not mistaken) used for logging into xfinity, or other public wifi from other providers.
Because performance is a high priority, the logging is minimal, but it keeps track of who's been served a message and doesn't collect any PII. The device is capable of serving any content, even causing a request from a third-party. So, it's possible that the content that gets ultimately injected is able to do whatever... anything a malicious advertisement would be capable of doing.
Your message eligibility is highly configurable, and can include metrics such as whether you visit certain sites, and possibly even your physical location.
There's a couple phases. First the network appliance injects so light code, using the Man-On-The-Side 302 redirect method. Once that's done, the injected code is probably going to request additional content after checking if you qualify for a message.
OK, thanks for providing those details. Thankfully I've not encountered this anywhere before in Australasia.
Can I ask why you would protect the company behind the devices?
All the information a person could want is available if you know where to look. I'm providing well-documented information. If more information becomes public I can talk about it, otherwise, I simply can't. Let's just leave it at that.
Is this the same DPI device that snoops on DNS to shape bandwidth?
No. AFAIK it doesn't do any DPI. It's only for user messaging (content injection).
That's all for this throwaway...
Logging off forever!
I'm not sure if it still works like this or not, but up here in Canada with Shaw cable for the longest time, it just started out of nowhere one day, I'd always get redirected to a Shaw landing page or have Shaw ads injected into pages when I was browsing. I finally really noticed it one day so I did some searching at the time and found out Shaw has an option in their account page(enabled by default),
I can't remember what it's called, something like 'Shaw enhanced browsing' or some shit, but basically this 'feature' allows shaw to route traffic through their servers and inject content into sites. There was no description of this option in the account settings, they were buried 3 or 4 layers deep, there was no mention of this 'feature' from any of Shaw's customer service people, the only way I discovered this was through some random forum conversation I found.
There was also people mentioning (this never happened to me)that despite switching the option off, they would find it turned back on again a day or two later and have to repeat the process. I have no idea if this is still the case, this would have been quite a while ago now, but I was pretty unimpressed when I figured it out and realized what was going on.
I can't remember what it's called, something like 'Shaw enhanced browsing' or some shit, but basically this 'feature' allows shaw to route traffic through their servers and inject content into sites. There was no description of this option in the account settings, they were buried 3 or 4 layers deep, there was no mention of this 'feature' from any of Shaw's customer service people, the only way I discovered this was through some random forum conversation I found.
There was also people mentioning (this never happened to me)that despite switching the option off, they would find it turned back on again a day or two later and have to repeat the process. I have no idea if this is still the case, this would have been quite a while ago now, but I was pretty unimpressed when I figured it out and realized what was going on.
IMHO getting redirected would be WIDELY more acceptable than injecting content.
I'm not sure if I described it clearly, with this mode on, all of your traffic was being redirected to a Shaw server before being routed to where it was supposed to go. It was like being connected to a vpn that existed solely to serve me ads. They were blocking ads on websites and replacing them with their own from their servers, I would get popup ads from them that were not being stopped by adblock, every misspelled or dead URL would take me to their landing page full of ads for their services. Not only were they interfering with my traffic, but they were interfering with the monetization of website. As much as I dislike ads, I'd rather the site owners get the ad revenue for my browsing than a company I'm already paying for internet.
I mean I suppose, but even that seems wildly inappropriate.
I agree, but I still think it's "better"
> 'm not sure if it still works like this or not, but up here in Canada with Shaw cable for the longest time, it just started out of nowhere one day, I'd always get redirected to a Shaw landing page or have Shaw ads injected into pages when I was browsing.
How do you redirect without injecting content?
> I can't remember what it's called, something like 'Shaw enhanced browsing' or some shit, but basically this 'feature' allows shaw to route traffic through their servers and inject content into sites.
Stuff like this makes me wish it were a criminal offense to dishonestly describe a feature as an "enhancement" or "improvement" when 9/10 users would not see it that way.
Stuff like this makes me wish it were a criminal offense to dishonestly describe a feature as an "enhancement" or "improvement" when 9/10 users would not see it that way.
I am currently trying to find this feature you mentioned. Are you still a Shaw customer able to look again to where exactly in the account it is because I can not find it or mention of it online? Thanks
This would have been at least 9 years ago if not longer. I honestly never looked again after it stopped happening.
Edit:i did find this discussion on hacker news about Shaw's hijacking from 2014.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6993831
Edit:i did find this discussion on hacker news about Shaw's hijacking from 2014.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6993831
I've been a Shaw customer for more than three or four years and have never seen (or heard of) anything like this.
I have a feeling, if this ever happened, it was closer to a decade ago.
I have a feeling, if this ever happened, it was closer to a decade ago.
On a broader level this is why the FCC is IMHO wrong in not considering broadband a telecommunication service. As ISPs inject their content (including advertising) into third party content, they essentially take over said content. E.g., if someone requests access to my content via their service, besides any corruption of functionality, artistic work and even intended meaning, any revenue generated by this is directly drawn from my content without license. From my perspective as a potential content provider, this is clearly a violation. It may be even a violation of existing contracts, e.g., if there's a no third parties clause involved in an existing advertising contract the content provider has agreed to.
From which quite naturally follows, if broadband providers in the US consider themselves content services rather than telecommunication services, they have to acquire licenses for the content they provide, as well. (Xfinity, may have your billing address?)
As a content provider this is why you need HTTPS, and it's why you should ensure you certificate is in the transparency logs, and that your site requires CT entries.
However, this is more like "better have a lock so that thieves have a harder time breaking the door". If the US are making IP violations legal, they put themselves in danger to be treated like other countries who are considered notoriously ignoring IP as part of their overall business model.
True..
The sad thing is that with many kinds of cybercrime, it's easier to fix the security vulnerability, than it is to track down the criminals and make them stop :)
In this case, the vulnerability is using HTTP, not HTTPS.
The sad thing is that with many kinds of cybercrime, it's easier to fix the security vulnerability, than it is to track down the criminals and make them stop :)
In this case, the vulnerability is using HTTP, not HTTPS.
Still, if we do not take care of bad actors, bad actors are what we get (and probably what we deserve).
Edit: Also, what stops those ISPs from impersonating the requested host by means of their own root certificate, just like antivirus software does it?
Edit: Also, what stops those ISPs from impersonating the requested host by means of their own root certificate, just like antivirus software does it?
Then my browser would throw a certificate warning unless I added my ISPs root cert.
As pointed out by another comment already, "you" maybe as well the ISP's installer software.
Well, HTTPS could still be man-in-the-middled, right? I am not really informed, but I would not be surprised if some ISPs are even recognized as certificate authorities.
MITMing TLS requires either (1) a falsely issued certificate, which would be "a big deal" when (not if) found and would lead to the issuer losing their status as accepted in browsers, or (2) the user to install a certificate generated by the person doing the MITM, this is often done in corporate environments.
> or (2) the user to install a certificate generated by the person doing the MITM
You mean like that "setup software" Comcast spent ages trying to pretend I had to install just to get things running?
I ran Linux in those days, which always meant a little extra support time but I never had to install jack.
You mean like that "setup software" Comcast spent ages trying to pretend I had to install just to get things running?
I ran Linux in those days, which always meant a little extra support time but I never had to install jack.
That's quite possible, but many apps and browsers pin certificates and this would probably be reported quickly?
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs...
> Chrome does not perform pin validation when the certificate chain chains up to a private trust anchor. A key result of this policy is that private trust anchors can be used to proxy (or MITM) connections, even to pinned sites.
> Chrome does not perform pin validation when the certificate chain chains up to a private trust anchor. A key result of this policy is that private trust anchors can be used to proxy (or MITM) connections, even to pinned sites.
I was going off remembering this.
> Late on December 24, Chrome detected and blocked an unauthorized digital certificate for the "*.google.com" domain.
https://security.googleblog.com/2013/01/enhancing-digital-ce...
> Late on December 24, Chrome detected and blocked an unauthorized digital certificate for the "*.google.com" domain.
https://security.googleblog.com/2013/01/enhancing-digital-ce...
Pretty sure chrome has it's own code to detect Google certs and report invalid ones back to Google.
Are we sure that there won't be an exception installed to this in favor of broadband providers, considering the paths already taken?
Terms and conditions of this comment: This comment is provided for free to <https://news.ycombinator.com> AKA "Hacker News", including any redistribution to be considered under the clause of fair use. Any other redistribution, including injection of third party content or surrounding content, chrome, or any other HTML element(s), be it in static or generated code, is considered a violation of the terms of this contribution.
Terms and conditions of this comment: This comment is provided for free to <https://news.ycombinator.com> AKA "Hacker News", including any redistribution to be considered under the clause of fair use. Any other redistribution, including injection of third party content or surrounding content, chrome, or any other HTML element(s), be it in static or generated code, is considered a violation of the terms of this contribution.
Your browser and OS quickly delist any certificate found to have forged a certificate for a website they don't own. They're unapologetic about it too - and don't care who they piss off.
However, browsers have played along with US legislation previously. (E.g., when long key encryption was restricted to US versions only.) I'm not sure, if Mozilla would be playing along nowadays, but you can't be too sure, either. Moreover, you could consider certificates installed by antivirus software as some kind of prior art to this. (While considered a security risk, at least by some, they are not delisted.)
This is exactly why I cancelled my Comcast service a few years ago and switched to Sonic, even though it had orders of magnitude less bandwidth. I even offered to stay on as a customer, and pay whatever 'overage' fees they charged, if they implemented some way to make exceptions and never inject the data cap warning on my account, but they claimed that was impossible. When I returned the rental equipment, I made it absolutely clear that I considered this practice immoral and reprehensible.
If anyone else considers cancelling their service, but has trouble getting Comcast to let them actually do it, just remove your payment method from the account, and let them know that if they attempt charging to it again, you'll sue them for fraud; that'll get your account closed real quick!
If anyone else considers cancelling their service, but has trouble getting Comcast to let them actually do it, just remove your payment method from the account, and let them know that if they attempt charging to it again, you'll sue them for fraud; that'll get your account closed real quick!
The suburb (outside of Seattle city limits) that I live in is a suburban area, density is easily high enough.
My choices are Comcast (up to 1gbit down / 30 mbit up IIRC) or rotting exposed copper POTS (from Clink?) that has VDSL at something around 10mbit down / 1 mbit up.
Thus, I have only one choice of broadband provider and due to lack of competition as well as lack of regulation, no broadband providers that offer unlimited service* (technically Comcast will happily charge me 600 extra dollars a year for no increased speed but no caps; however they shouldn't even bother with caps on their highest tier packages).
My choices are Comcast (up to 1gbit down / 30 mbit up IIRC) or rotting exposed copper POTS (from Clink?) that has VDSL at something around 10mbit down / 1 mbit up.
Thus, I have only one choice of broadband provider and due to lack of competition as well as lack of regulation, no broadband providers that offer unlimited service* (technically Comcast will happily charge me 600 extra dollars a year for no increased speed but no caps; however they shouldn't even bother with caps on their highest tier packages).
I used Sonic (DSL) for five years while I lived in the south bay and I was extremely happy with the service and the company.
Where I live now comcast is the only broadband available and although the service is theoretically faster and somewhat less expensive, I'd pay twice the price for sonic. Comcast is unreliable, intermittently very slow, and the company is impossible to deal with.
Where I live now comcast is the only broadband available and although the service is theoretically faster and somewhat less expensive, I'd pay twice the price for sonic. Comcast is unreliable, intermittently very slow, and the company is impossible to deal with.
I would happily switch if I had literally any other choice here. There isn’t even any phone lines running to our house, it’s Comcast cable or nothing.
Xfinity is most likely committing data usage measurement fraud due to their implementation of this banner.
I asked the person responsible for the banner if it counted towards data caps and was ignored. https://twitter.com/sephr/status/941067958096244741
I asked the person responsible for the banner if it counted towards data caps and was ignored. https://twitter.com/sephr/status/941067958096244741
They could measure the size of the JS payload, and subtract that from the size of the web page, before adding that number to the number of bytes used in a billing period. That way they could "more-fairly" measure bandwidth usage even with their MITM "value-add" and "informative" content.
Though, seriously, I have a hard time understanding the reasoning for data caps on DOCSIS infrastructure. On LTE, yes. WISP, yeah - kinda. DOCSIS, DSL and GPON? Absolutely no!
Not to mention the horrifying realization of most uninformed people that their ISP can and will intercept, log, modify or restrict access to content that the user has requested, even though the user has the right to such content, having paid the monthly subscription fee for the connection. But hey, I don't work at a large cable ISP, I couldn't possibly understand their reasoning and advanced calculations. /s
Though, seriously, I have a hard time understanding the reasoning for data caps on DOCSIS infrastructure. On LTE, yes. WISP, yeah - kinda. DOCSIS, DSL and GPON? Absolutely no!
Not to mention the horrifying realization of most uninformed people that their ISP can and will intercept, log, modify or restrict access to content that the user has requested, even though the user has the right to such content, having paid the monthly subscription fee for the connection. But hey, I don't work at a large cable ISP, I couldn't possibly understand their reasoning and advanced calculations. /s
> Though, seriously, I have a hard time understanding the reasoning for data caps on DOCSIS infrastructure.
It really $houldn't be that hard to under$tand.
It really $houldn't be that hard to under$tand.
It’s my impression that the bottleneck isn’t the last mile technology (wireless, copper or fiber), but the interconnects between ISPs and the rest of the internet. This is why Netflix can be crawling in the evening while you’re getting the full speed on a speedtest (that’s not fast.com)
They typically don't count traffic within their network towards the data cap (e.g. streaming Xfinity TV), so I don't think it is safe to make an assumption about the banner one way or another.
It's delivered alongside the webpage so there's no technical way to split the data logically... Unless they're using "rough math".
What? They just have to measure bandwidth from the other side of whatever is modifying the content.
Yes there is, it has to come from somewhere, and we know it's not coming from the actual site being visited...
Nope... The packets need to be sealed back together, at that point the data is denormalized and you can't measure how much it "actually" counted.
Huh? I happen to run my own intercepting proxy which rewrites HTML pages, and if I wanted to, I could easily track exactly how many bytes came in and how many bytes went out.
Yes? You can see how much you added, the size before and the size after.
This is not a technical impossiblity, I'm sorry if you're invested emotionally in it being impossible.
This is not a technical impossiblity, I'm sorry if you're invested emotionally in it being impossible.
RT'd
I just got this as well. I’m appalled at the complete lack of thought put into this. I’ve had numerous emails & push notifications telling me I’m over my data cap; I don’t need injected content into my page in addition.
They have my #.
They have my email.
They have my address.
Those are the ways I want to be contacted.
Those are the ways I want to be contacted.
Honest question: If I own the copyright to a webpage (say my personal blog) and Comcast modifies my page to insert this "helpful" warning message, is it likely I'd have a case to sue them for creating an unauthorized derivative work of my content?
Take a screen shot of the banner covering up a contact form or subscribe button, and you may have damages!
Some days I wish I was a Software Engineer AND a lawyer just so I could try out stuff like this in court to see what happens.
I was wondering about this too.
Honestly just https and at least you're gtg.
IANAL but I think you have to demonstrate harm.
Regarding actual damages, popups about data limits that appear to come from my page can easily damage my reputation or give the false impression that I have so9me kind of relationship with Comcast.
Since they are making a new derivative work without the authorization of the copyright holder, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. The remedy for that could include statutory damages for each work they infringed of "a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just"[1]. However, since the infringement was patently willful (they published an RFC explaining their intentions and methods), "the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000."[2]
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504#c_1
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504#c_2
Since they are making a new derivative work without the authorization of the copyright holder, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. The remedy for that could include statutory damages for each work they infringed of "a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just"[1]. However, since the infringement was patently willful (they published an RFC explaining their intentions and methods), "the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000."[2]
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504#c_1
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504#c_2
Slower pages are clearly linked to lost revenue (even a few milliseconds has been shown to affect conversion rates). This would be an easy case, I think.
I used to live in Fort Collins and I was _floored_ the first time that an xfinity data limit popup appeared on a random website. Colorado needs a better provider.
This makes me want to move back. https://ourcity.fcgov.com/citybroadband
I’m glad that someone is benefiting from my vote :)
I have GB fiber from CenturyLink for $85 until the city broadband, the city has had FTTH for at least 10 years or so, so anything new this should be doable.
Where in Fort Collins have they deployed FTTH, and when? I know FRII deployed some fiber, but based on some conversations I had with them they had largely abandoned it because of the burden of doing fiber locates. I don't know of anyone who has FTTH. The best my house lists on the Century Link site is 40Mbps. But, the city ran their conduit by my house 2 weeks ago, so hopefully we have fiber by the end of the year...
Oddly when I first moved in they said also 40Mbps, then 200, then finally GB. I think they were upgrading the upstream equipment because I had fiber the whole time. I don't know how to find out other than calling, although they do send mailings to our street as well.
FoCo is getting giga fiber!
This is sadly common: I’ve run Sentry (https://github.com/getsentry/onpremise) for years to collect JavaScript errors on the sites I run. If you haven’t done so, it’s eye-opening how noisy the JavaScript environment is for many people: ISPs, browse extensions, anti-virus software, etc. all injecting tons of marginally-tested code, most of it written at a level which would have been shameful back in 1998, and apparently little awareness of how to avoid polluting the global namespace.
A similar bit of malware had a surprising twist: many ISPs, especially mobile, used an image compressor which made things look terrible but, unexpectedly, it honored Cache-Control: no-transform. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/4113511/59984.
I’m curious whether Comcast does that – it would be surprising but also possible as a way to reduce the risk of lawsuits.
A similar bit of malware had a surprising twist: many ISPs, especially mobile, used an image compressor which made things look terrible but, unexpectedly, it honored Cache-Control: no-transform. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/4113511/59984.
I’m curious whether Comcast does that – it would be surprising but also possible as a way to reduce the risk of lawsuits.
Currently down, here is an archived version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029172726/https://rietta.co...
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029172726/https://rietta.co...
Cheers, back up now. Might have been scaling.
At least Xfinity is giving you information /s. Optimum Online does this and serves me advertisements for new channels or movies available through VOD [1]
1: https://imgur.com/a/UZYd7JH
1: https://imgur.com/a/UZYd7JH
How do you know that their (Xfinity) JavaScript code counts against your data cap?
So much of the tone of this article is vaguely alarmist, which is a little annoying... seeing as the issue described is already extremely alarming
It didn't need the theatrics and intentionally misleading garnishments (like quoting Comcast's own RFC that's describing their own recommended behavior for themselves, then pointing out you can phish people, and then awkwardly trying to glue those tangential points together)
The bad behavior is bad enough that it'd stand on it's own, and if it instead focused on things like accessibility up front, it'd be much stronger of an article (and people would be more likely to read it all the way through)
It didn't need the theatrics and intentionally misleading garnishments (like quoting Comcast's own RFC that's describing their own recommended behavior for themselves, then pointing out you can phish people, and then awkwardly trying to glue those tangential points together)
The bad behavior is bad enough that it'd stand on it's own, and if it instead focused on things like accessibility up front, it'd be much stronger of an article (and people would be more likely to read it all the way through)
I'm curious about this as well. When I worked on content-based billing in Canada years ago, we zero-rated content that was served by us, so it wouldn't contribute towards data usage. That was a different time though and likely a different implementation.
Even if it does, that's way overnight on the article. A few 50KB here and there aren't your problem if you're blowing past a 250Gb or 1TB data cap.
I am also curious! I want to know how the author got to their conclusion.
First time I saw one of these 4 years ago was when it popped into a Steam sale advertising window. Really creeped me out. A sure sign Comcast is pretty much 100% infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephelopathy. Still they offer Internet that is 10 times faster than the competition. Ah, the tyranny of the last mile. I went with Comcast Business, and they don't have data caps...
Of course, this whole thing is also overlooking the absurdity of a 1 TB monthly data cap on a service offering up to 1000 Mbps bandwidth.
I did the numbers with the AT&T sales rep here in South Texas, which has a similar plan and cap. If my math is anywhere close to correct (questionable), actually pulling 1000 Mbps would would exhaust the 1 TB cap in about 2.3 hours.
Yes, hours. That cap cannot sustain the advertised speed for even one full day before hitting overage charges.
Needless to say, we went with a different service provider. We are fortunate here to have an option (alas, still a cable company) that has no data cap, but not everyone is so lucky.
Yes, hours. That cap cannot sustain the advertised speed for even one full day before hitting overage charges.
Needless to say, we went with a different service provider. We are fortunate here to have an option (alas, still a cable company) that has no data cap, but not everyone is so lucky.
Yep, it doesn't take long.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1Terabyte+at+1+gigabit...
Think of all the "cloud" kind of things you could enable if you could use that bandwidth. Only we can't.
Think backups of your entire disk etc... massive p2p cluster filesystems stuff like that. All not possible cause of these data caps.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1Terabyte+at+1+gigabit...
Think of all the "cloud" kind of things you could enable if you could use that bandwidth. Only we can't.
Think backups of your entire disk etc... massive p2p cluster filesystems stuff like that. All not possible cause of these data caps.
> (Comcast still has datacaps. Pricing like it’s 1999…)
That's not how internet was billed in 1999. You paid for the size of the pipe, not how much data came through.
Per-byte pricing is pretty much a cell carrier and Comcast invention
That's not how internet was billed in 1999. You paid for the size of the pipe, not how much data came through.
Per-byte pricing is pretty much a cell carrier and Comcast invention
They can do this on any site including secured ones? I don't think the link makes this clear.
I don't think this would affect requests over an https connection.
Further incentivizing the use of HTTPS everywhere, imo. It's such a cheap standard now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any good reasons for a site to be running HTTP any longer, other than laziness.
I'll give it a shot. If you put up your site behind HTTPS you are breaking the web for older web clients. Many sites have already deprecated TLS v1.1 so even 10 year old devices may no longer be able to access the web. HTTPS is great but it has a cost.
> even 10 year old devices may no longer be able to access the web
I think you mean 10 year old software, which is a much smaller bucket than 10 year old devices. And if you're browsing the web with 10 year old software, you have much bigger problems including but not limited to committing security-suicide.
I think you mean 10 year old software, which is a much smaller bucket than 10 year old devices. And if you're browsing the web with 10 year old software, you have much bigger problems including but not limited to committing security-suicide.
I found some old Macs belonging to a non-profit to be apparently useless (for their purposes) because you couldn't upgrade the system software enough to let a browser operate properly with secure sites. Sure, there's Linux, but they appeared to be useless as Macs.
Well the TLS change breaks software (FF 26) (2015) and affects android versions <= 19 (2014). Kind of a bummer if you have old smartphone. But I agree, it's a tiny bucket and it's best to upgrade when you can.
Not too many attacks these days target Amiga software
You can MITM https.
Only if you have a cert that the browser trusts for that domain. If a CA was found to be illicitly minting certs, browsers and operating systems would untrust them. All their certs would stop working. Their business would be ruined.
That's interesting. Can someone elaborate on this? My understanding is once the session is established, that's it. just encrypted traffic. How to inject something into ecrypted traffic?
DPI units can unwrap and re-wrap SSL
Comcast's RFC (6108) states that it designed the system described therein specifically to not need to use DPI.
Not saying Comcast definitely doesn't use it; rather, that it'd be hilarious to see Comcast lie to everyone's faces yet again.
Not saying Comcast definitely doesn't use it; rather, that it'd be hilarious to see Comcast lie to everyone's faces yet again.
Of course, to distinguish HTTP traffic from non-HTTP traffic and to intelligently insert the code snippet only where it won't disrupt e.g. API call response or a file download, some basic level of DPI is required.
You don't re-wrap. You just downgrade to HTTP.
This is why TLS1.3 and HSTS exists.
This is why TLS1.3 and HSTS exists.
Do you have a link to anything on this? I'm still not clear on how to MITM a TLS transmission sans CA cert.
The attacker needs to generate a new cert that the client trusts. This is easy on a corporate network where you can force users to trust a private CA. Unlikely to happen with a US ISP, but possible if someone hacks the CA (eg DigiNotar) or the CA hands out unconstrained certificates to someone who acts badly (eg CNNIC).
Speaking of which, is there a published list of Root CA fingerprints a specific version of OS or browser is supposed to have that I can compare to? In other words, how can one tell if their browser/OS is not compromised with undesirable Root CAs.
Mozilla and Microsoft publish their lists. Chrome uses the OS's root store. I've seen other open source software use Mozilla's list, but I've never seen a list of what software does that.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Included_Certificates https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security/trusted-root/parti...
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Included_Certificates https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security/trusted-root/parti...
What you are describing doesn't seem to be a MITM attack on https traffic, but something else, which is why I stated "sans CA cert".
They're describing what would be required to MITM HTTPS traffic. You're correct that they essentially need to get the cert.
Without a root CA? And without showing up in certificate transparency logs?
Good luck :)
Good luck :)
No.
Technically, yes, but the only way I know possible is having direct access to the target device to force it to trust fake certs, and is usually used to unwrap encrypted traffic being sent from applications on your own devices. I don't know of a way for the ISP to do this, unless they conspire with a certificate authority. I'd like think this isn't happening.
Have your customers install internet "accelerator" software.
Fortunately, iOS devices won’t allow this.
Only if the victim trusts the attacker's certs, right?
That said, Comcast is big enough that it might be in cahoots with at least one less-than-scrupulous CA (or might even be a CA; I don't follow these sorts of things closely enough).
That said, Comcast is big enough that it might be in cahoots with at least one less-than-scrupulous CA (or might even be a CA; I don't follow these sorts of things closely enough).
Mozilla would kick Comcast out of the root CA list pretty fast.
Finally, there is certificate transparency logs, you can set CT headers on your site to require the certificate to be in CT logs. Then you can monitor if anyone's creates certificates for your domain. And updated clients can validate that certificates is in the CT logs.
HTTPS is pretty robust these days. There's still a few corner cases around SNI, but that only leaks what host your visiting, wouldn't allow injection -- and specs are slowly closing those holes too.
Finally, there is certificate transparency logs, you can set CT headers on your site to require the certificate to be in CT logs. Then you can monitor if anyone's creates certificates for your domain. And updated clients can validate that certificates is in the CT logs.
HTTPS is pretty robust these days. There's still a few corner cases around SNI, but that only leaks what host your visiting, wouldn't allow injection -- and specs are slowly closing those holes too.
Is there a published list of Root CA fingerprints a specific version of OS or browser is supposed to have that I can compare to? In other words, how can one tell if their browser/OS is not compromised with undesirable Root CAs.
Mozilla maintains a list of root CAs that are distributed with Firefox, and used by most other vendors too.
But really, if you don't trust what installed on your machine it's game over.
But really, if you don't trust what installed on your machine it's game over.
> That said, Comcast is big enough that it might be in cahoots with at least one less-than-scrupulous CA (or might even be a CA; I don't follow these sorts of things closely enough).
The moment that was discovered, the CA would stop being a trusted CA.
The moment that was discovered, the CA would stop being a trusted CA.
Only if it was a barely used CA. If killing it would break lots of sites, it would take years to kill if ever.
There's a lot more appetite these days for enforcing requirements on CAs, ever since CT started going down the road towards mandatory, and ever since misbehaving CAs started getting forced to implement it immediately. Intentionally MITMing TLS on the broader Internet the way this thread is talking about would be a fairly quick death sentence.
Also, given the existence of Let's Encrypt, there's much less reason to be using a paid CA, and planned migration to a new CA provider isn't too much to ask. There'd likely be some work within browsers to provide clear error messages, and sites would need some amount of time to migrate, but I think we're talking days-to-weeks before there's a warning banner on the sites and months at most before the CA is dead.
Also, given the existence of Let's Encrypt, there's much less reason to be using a paid CA, and planned migration to a new CA provider isn't too much to ask. There'd likely be some work within browsers to provide clear error messages, and sites would need some amount of time to migrate, but I think we're talking days-to-weeks before there's a warning banner on the sites and months at most before the CA is dead.
How? Excluding cases where the attacker already has some sort of secret
Right, and presumably using a VPN would stop this as well, but you'd have to get a pretty nice VPN to not impact your experience by 250ms/req.
>but you'd have to get a pretty nice VPN to not impact your experience by 250ms/req.
Eh? I was thinking the opposite, that's such a ludicrous latency overhead that it would be trivial to go to any VPS provider even sort of nearby and spin up a $5 instance with Algo. The only concern normally for some of them is the super cheap simple managed instances often have data caps too (though some provides are bandwidth limits only), but in this use case even that doesn't matter because the limits are still higher than Comcast's regardless. There are datacenters in Denver, but even if you had to go all the way to SF and it's a worst case adding 1800 miles RTT that should still only be around 10-14ms or so right? The article seems a little silly to go on so much about a few kb of data out of tens of gigabytes or a TB or whatever Comcast's caps are, but 250ms is wild, even without all the other breakage.
Although I've always heard that if you're ever forced to go Comcast, the average HN type would be best off seeking a Comcast Business connection that has actual support and customers that use the internet fully.
Eh? I was thinking the opposite, that's such a ludicrous latency overhead that it would be trivial to go to any VPS provider even sort of nearby and spin up a $5 instance with Algo. The only concern normally for some of them is the super cheap simple managed instances often have data caps too (though some provides are bandwidth limits only), but in this use case even that doesn't matter because the limits are still higher than Comcast's regardless. There are datacenters in Denver, but even if you had to go all the way to SF and it's a worst case adding 1800 miles RTT that should still only be around 10-14ms or so right? The article seems a little silly to go on so much about a few kb of data out of tens of gigabytes or a TB or whatever Comcast's caps are, but 250ms is wild, even without all the other breakage.
Although I've always heard that if you're ever forced to go Comcast, the average HN type would be best off seeking a Comcast Business connection that has actual support and customers that use the internet fully.
Agreed. I used to run all my traffic through a VPN I ran, and found that the average latency was lower than routing it to the default gateway.
This was possible because my server was well connected and very low latency talking to Comcast, and also very low latency talking to the rest of the Internet via Level-3, Time Warner, QWest and InterNAP. Where directly routed traffic would run over the Comcast network most of the way across the country.
This was possible because my server was well connected and very low latency talking to Comcast, and also very low latency talking to the rest of the Internet via Level-3, Time Warner, QWest and InterNAP. Where directly routed traffic would run over the Comcast network most of the way across the country.
One problem with this approach is many streaming content providers identify known VPN egress points, consider them methods for subverting region-restrictions, and thus won't serve ANY data to you. Netflix does this w/ PIA (and probably others) for instance.
Netflix has known netblocks[1] though, so you may bypass VPN for those or similar content networks.
[1] https://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_prefixes
[1] https://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_prefixes
When i have seen this. It normally shows as slow loads on nest web cams. Turning on the VPN and poof it goes away
I also have Xfinity and began to experience this a few years ago. When it started I configured my router (pfSense running on an APU2) to forward all outgoing connections on port 80 (and a selection of other commonly unencrypted ports) through a VPN - but leave all other ports, especially 443, alone.
I’ve been doing that ever since. It works great, and for me is a good trade-off over using a VPN for literally everything.
I’ve been doing that ever since. It works great, and for me is a good trade-off over using a VPN for literally everything.
We need a service which tests web pages from different points on the internet, including foreign countries, at regular intervals, and compares the results to a known good version of that page, and its code.
It should answer such questions as:
1) Did the website load?
2) How long did it take to load?
3) Was the content tampered with in any way, was anything added to, or deleted from the content, including any code, such as its javascript?
So, be able to perform those tests, from a variety of points on the Internet, from a variety of IP addresses, at regular intervals, and report back.
Noting any and all discrepancies, and storing all anomalous web page data retrieved (including code) for further analysis...
It should answer such questions as:
1) Did the website load?
2) How long did it take to load?
3) Was the content tampered with in any way, was anything added to, or deleted from the content, including any code, such as its javascript?
So, be able to perform those tests, from a variety of points on the Internet, from a variety of IP addresses, at regular intervals, and report back.
Noting any and all discrepancies, and storing all anomalous web page data retrieved (including code) for further analysis...
This is why regulatory capture matters: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Big govt bureaucracy is terrible, but a private one (which is confident they won’t face any trouble or practical consequences) is still trouble.
There hopefully won’t be “mask off” moments for these providers & get really gnarly but this kind of behavior can screw over regular Joe’s & Janes
Big govt bureaucracy is terrible, but a private one (which is confident they won’t face any trouble or practical consequences) is still trouble.
There hopefully won’t be “mask off” moments for these providers & get really gnarly but this kind of behavior can screw over regular Joe’s & Janes
I'm intrigued by why you created a one off account just to post this. To address something that stuck in my craw though -
"Big govt bureacracy is terrible, but a private one (etc)"
You're implying big government bureaucracy is the only option here. How about, you know, regulating internet as a utility? The thing we've been wanting since forever? Unless there's actively a shortage of water or power, I can get those and use them as I feel like, paying extremely low fees. I don't care if my internet is pay for use, provided it's priced close to the actual cost.
"Big govt bureacracy is terrible, but a private one (etc)"
You're implying big government bureaucracy is the only option here. How about, you know, regulating internet as a utility? The thing we've been wanting since forever? Unless there's actively a shortage of water or power, I can get those and use them as I feel like, paying extremely low fees. I don't care if my internet is pay for use, provided it's priced close to the actual cost.
States should ban data caps. That's the only way to deal with those ISP crooks.
This is orthogonal to data caps. We could debate separately if people should be allowed to have contracts with those limits, but the actual problem here is that the ISP is modifying the traffic I requested before they deliver it. In this case it was for data cap notices, but next time it might be for ads or malware or anything else they want to inject.
And if there is a data cap, it should be proportionate to the data bw plan I am paying for. I had a 100mb/s plan with a 1TB cap. I moved to a 400mb/s plan and I still have a 1TB cap. So I can burst faster, but my overall usage is expected to stay the same.
That said, I do most of my downloading on VPS provider, then what I finally want to keep, I compress and pull it down over my VPN. This still doesn't help for things like streaming movies, game updates, etc...
That said, I do most of my downloading on VPS provider, then what I finally want to keep, I compress and pull it down over my VPN. This still doesn't help for things like streaming movies, game updates, etc...
Disagree. Paying per byte is a critical part of making people realize they are part of botnets and to create the only incentives that have a shot at working naturally like pressure against poorly secured smart devices. Unlimited bandwidth just forces everyone behind Cloudflare and breaks the internet.
Pay per byte is a fleecing scheme, nothing more. You already pay more for more bandwidth. ISPs get more than enough doing that without any monthly data caps.
It’s an extortion scheme.
Oh so if I use a gig, I only pay for a gig? That doesn’t sound like a date cap, that sounds like a going rate for data. They still charge you for all the data you never consumed, which makes no sense as a transaction.
Oh please,this is not new. They've been doing this for at least 5 years that I know of. If you pirate,they dmca alert you with MITM'd divs in the html pages you visit. I mean the fact they inject http headers is one thing but they don't even care to do a 301 or mess with DNS responses,they will inject code in your browser tab!
Lawyers on HN, how is this not a violation of CFAA? If I sat at a coffee shop and did the same thing (say a "harmless" js "alert('Hi everyone!');") that is punishable with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment. So you're saying if I was the ISP that's ok? Why is the FBI/DOJ not criminally prosecuting comcast's CEO? Preferential treatment or prosecutorial discretion? Will comcast start pushing back on dragnet sutveillance cooperation?
The whole thing is so crooked! How can we bring this to the attention of lawnakers and media?? If the post office put notes in your mail (outside of a law enforcement request) would it not be a big deal?
Lawyers on HN, how is this not a violation of CFAA? If I sat at a coffee shop and did the same thing (say a "harmless" js "alert('Hi everyone!');") that is punishable with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment. So you're saying if I was the ISP that's ok? Why is the FBI/DOJ not criminally prosecuting comcast's CEO? Preferential treatment or prosecutorial discretion? Will comcast start pushing back on dragnet sutveillance cooperation?
The whole thing is so crooked! How can we bring this to the attention of lawnakers and media?? If the post office put notes in your mail (outside of a law enforcement request) would it not be a big deal?
Have you read your ISP’s terms of service? Do you really think Comcast didn’t include language giving them the right to do almost anything to your traffic?
An agreement is invalid if it is unlawful. Think of it this way, a packet in transit belongs both to the sender and receiver but never to the intetmediary. Even if a comcast customer agreed to a ToS stating all their traffic solely belongs to Comcast, the servers sending the traffic to the Comcast customer never gave that permission,they never allowed comcast to present altered content to their customer. The only way that reasoning holds up is if comcast and comcast's customers are one legal entity(you're essentially their subject much like an employee but even then employees are distinct)
How is this unlawful without robust network neutrality legislation? They’re not claiming ownership or redistributing it, and I’m sure they’d argue that this shouldn’t have any side effects.
I’m far from a fan of Comcast but this doesn’t seem like something we have a good legal angle for addressing.
I’m far from a fan of Comcast but this doesn’t seem like something we have a good legal angle for addressing.
Because they're manipupating content, CFAA is a law that exists to mitigate unauthorized access and obstruction of computer systems...that's how,the same law any ordinary person would face.
Whose systems do you think they’re accessing? They’re not hacking the web server to add that warning: instead, they’re waiting for it to send a reply to you and modifying it as it passes through their systems as permitted by the legal agreement you signed. This is like trying to say DoorDash should be tried for trespassing if they put a flier in your delivery.
Again, this should be illegal but I think we need strong network neutrality laws to make that so. Wishful thinking won’t save us the trouble of passing them.
Again, this should be illegal but I think we need strong network neutrality laws to make that so. Wishful thinking won’t save us the trouble of passing them.
More like if doordash put extra salt or spice on my food, the restaurant owner's expectation of the food's quality and integrity were violated.
With comcast,the expected privacy of the traffic by the server is violated, until delivered the content belongs to the sender. An intetmediary transports content but does not own it,has no right to manipupate it. Vandalizing other people's property is a crime everywhere,the question is does it apply to network packets in transit?
With comcast,the expected privacy of the traffic by the server is violated, until delivered the content belongs to the sender. An intetmediary transports content but does not own it,has no right to manipupate it. Vandalizing other people's property is a crime everywhere,the question is does it apply to network packets in transit?
Does changing your DNS modify this behavior? I had some similar issues with Cox in DC, and switching to run everything through 8.8.8.8 resolved the issues. It also resolved a problem with CenturyLink in Seattle where for whatever reason I couldn't speedtest through fast.com.
Nope, they physically open your packets, change the content of the HTML, and send the packets along the way.
Even if you access the IP directly, it still injects code via MITM attack.
I saw the MITM injection from Comcast exactly once and it served as a reminder to go and change the DNS settings on my routers. Never seen the injection since, and I've been on Comcast for years.
That is odd, I recently got a MITM injection even while running everything on openDNS.
Maybe you're right and me not seeing injections could be explained that a lot more traffic goes through SSL/TLS by default, or I'm just not getting close to my monthly quotas any more.
If you're using a Comcast router they don't even let you change your DNS on the router and any client DNS settings will be completely ignored.
It's kind of insane that they get away with charging customers $10-15/month for the privilege of a router without any privileges.
It's kind of insane that they get away with charging customers $10-15/month for the privilege of a router without any privileges.
"any client DNS settings will be completely ignored" - how are they accomplishing this? I wouldn't think this would be possible...
They perform a MITM attack on your DNS packets, since DNS protocol is unsecured.
It is another reason they're flagrantly against encrypting DNS and attempting to get laws passed against it.
It is another reason they're flagrantly against encrypting DNS and attempting to get laws passed against it.
Giving google your DNS requests isn't really better either...
Current Comcast user here, I can confirm that it does not.
I still get it with Cloudflare, Quad9, and Google as dns.
This is related but what is the best trade-off for security vs privacy? Personally, I'd love the ability to inspect what goes over my network and devices. I should be able to choose to intercept/log unencrypted content. (I guess this is actually the NSA-lite argument) With key pinning and HSTS it makes seeing what the content of a packet is really hard. On android you actually have to hack apk's to replace the keys.
It used to be very easy to put everything through a proxy server or mitmproxy and install a certificate on a device. While I value privacy and security it seems like everyone tech company moves to "protect users" is really a way to keep their adware and spyware running on their walled gardens.
It used to be very easy to put everything through a proxy server or mitmproxy and install a certificate on a device. While I value privacy and security it seems like everyone tech company moves to "protect users" is really a way to keep their adware and spyware running on their walled gardens.
[deleted]
doesnt fort collins have municipal internet now? reading here: https://www.fcgov.com/connexion/ i guess i didnt realize all of fort collins wasnt yet covered.
Even if that is a case for this specific user, that doesn't really resolve the underlying uses that is also affecting spaces that have a regional monopoly (e.g. me).
EDIT: I understand that's not your point. And I whole heartedly support people leaving and supporting municipal ISP.
EDIT: I understand that's not your point. And I whole heartedly support people leaving and supporting municipal ISP.
i understand your perspective. i live in denver and xfinity and whatever comcast lets centurylink have are my choices. i was initially reacting to the sentence in the post that mentioned that xfinity was the only available option and that struck me as wrong. i did a bit of research before firing off a post and discovered that my thought was incorrect and based off of incomplete information, but i left it there in case anyone else was under the same impression as me.
Out where I am we don't have fiber yet :(
We'll be switching ASAP when it's available.
i love fort collins so much and it gets even better the further north and/or west you get.
Yeah very few houses actually have been signed up so far. They're doing it on a street-by-street basis starting in the old town area.
I think the school has the fiber too.
1. Grab a cheap VPS with a decent monthly b/w quota and datacentres near you (Linode or Scaleway come to mind)
2. Buy whatever meets your criteria on https://openwrt.org/toh/start and install OpenWRT on it (I use a Mikrotik RB750GR3 with a Ubiquiti UAP-AC-LITE for wifi)
3. Setup Wireguard (https://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2018/08/02/124) on the VPS and OpenWRT
4. Be happy
2. Buy whatever meets your criteria on https://openwrt.org/toh/start and install OpenWRT on it (I use a Mikrotik RB750GR3 with a Ubiquiti UAP-AC-LITE for wifi)
3. Setup Wireguard (https://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2018/08/02/124) on the VPS and OpenWRT
4. Be happy
The also MITM DNS and cache negative responses. Comcast sucks.
I made a complaint to the FCC about this when they started to do this to me. A month later I got a cookie-cutter response from Comcast, but it felt good to at least cost them some tiny amount of time to need to respond. I ended up moving house to get away.
ISP options are now my #1 factor in deciding where to live, and if Comcast is the only viable option then I'm happy to tell apartment managers I'll look elsewhere.
ISP options are now my #1 factor in deciding where to live, and if Comcast is the only viable option then I'm happy to tell apartment managers I'll look elsewhere.
Their data cap notice interstitials are seriously obnoxious, I ran into the same problems. I'd end up with "stuck" pages where it would just randomly appear even after I clicked close.
What I eventually had to do was open a browser tab with no adblock (perhaps Chrome Incognito), close the notice, restart my router and modem to flush DNS, then flush locally to be sure it's gone. That usually worked.
What I eventually had to do was open a browser tab with no adblock (perhaps Chrome Incognito), close the notice, restart my router and modem to flush DNS, then flush locally to be sure it's gone. That usually worked.
Yeah, they've been doing this for years. It sucks.
Totally aware it's old news... and I was hoping to paint a better picture than the previous artists.
Yeah, I'm not hating at all. Just signalling frustration with you.
I noticed this type of notification injection on a mobile phone in the EU for my own personal websites. It strongly pushed me towards implementing LetsEncrypt and redirecting my users to HTTPs. ISPs can't inject anything into the HTML if you force a secure connection (unless they've gotten the end user to install their CA and inject generated certs).
Can we get technical details here? What JavaScript is being injected? What destinations are they adding?
Edit: I missed it: https://rietta.com/blog/comcast-insecure-injection/injection...
Edit: I missed it: https://rietta.com/blog/comcast-insecure-injection/injection...
Technical details are in the RFC submitted by Comcast: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108
Javascript is in the blog post
how was it being injected? was it all pages http? could it be a plugin you have? did you try multiple browsers?
I am in Fort Collins as well. Can’t wait for the city broadband to come to my area and ditch Comcast permanently.
Post author, what website were you visiting that was served over http:// allowing a data injection to occur?
Have you contacted them to warn them that Xfinity is injecting JS into their site, and asked them to implement HTTPS+HSTS to protect against that?
Have you contacted them to warn them that Xfinity is injecting JS into their site, and asked them to implement HTTPS+HSTS to protect against that?
Cox does this as well. I was recently staying a hotel and they were doing something similar prompting me to rate my experience. I started thinking about standards to make this kind of thing impossible... Ultimately TLS solves this issue. We should be bullish on making TLS standard.
TLS is pretty much standard. Unless you mean in some other way I am not paying attention to.
I agree it is "pretty much standard" but the ISPs and other network providers are not doing this with TLS traffic. They are only injecting the scripts in HTTP requests without TLS, at least in my experience.
Cox is absolutely MITM this too. HTTP/HTTPS it doesn’t matter. Terminate the tunnel, forge a cert and QED.
Setting up your own VPN with something like Streisand should protect against this right?
yes
So the decision then becomes which do you trust more, your ISP, or your VPN provider? I choose to only give my money to businesses which perform in good faith to their customers, regardless of competitive advantages in other areas.
This is happening with BSNL ISP in India. They re direct non https pages to phishing sites that claim my computer has virus. It is just shocking that ISP will re direct me to known phishing site.
Did you just upload Comcast’s code to your site, made it publicity available, and glue a GPL license to it? I wouldn’t be surprised if Comcast will try to sue you for that.
I have Cox Internet and they do the same thing when you reach 85% usage. I probably don't see it very often though because most of the sites I'm on are https.
Can you post the code that was found or how they are doing this? I feel like details are needed before everyone grabs their pitchfork here.
It's linked to in the article.
Glad I dropped the worst ISP in the USA.
You know its bad when even important morons (bureaucrats) call you a terrible company.
Does and if so how does this happen over https?
Can someone tell me for sure if XFinity is managing to inject this in Https pages? And, if they are, how are they doing it?
Yet another reason to use a VPN. Comcast can't inject this crap if they can't see the DOM/html.
This is why I hate those “why you shouldn’t use VPN” articles.
Wonder where this falls under the Computer Missuse act?
Take a screenshot of your website with this notification injected and send Comcast a standard DMCA take-down request. They are distributing illegally modified copies of your website.
Ugh:
<style>
body {
display: none;
}
</style>
Better solution: use Firefox and just prepend `about:reader?url=` to any URL you load. This article loads very nicely in Reader mode.
about:reader?url=https://rietta.com/blog/comcast-insecure-injection/
about:reader?url=https://rietta.com/blog/comcast-insecure-injection/
One of the things I tried really hard to do is make the HTML _really_ clean for things like this.
Is reader mode "really good" or do you think it loads very nicely because of the work we put in to make the HTML nice?
I think it's a mix of both. Honestly I vastly prefer Reader mode's presentation than any other layout, and especially any layout which changes if I interact with it (resize window, move mouse, click mouse button, press key, send window to background, whatever).
I have seen some sites that completely break when using Reader mode. I have seen sites that are very well done in Reader mode complete even with pictures.
I have seen some sites that completely break when using Reader mode. I have seen sites that are very well done in Reader mode complete even with pictures.
Does your browser not load <noscript>?
It doesn't, which is admittedly pretty unusual.
Never mind. Sorry for the noise.
Never mind. Sorry for the noise.
Oh okay! I just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything I could do to make this a better experience for you! Enjoy.
Encrypt all the things.
I have Xfinity and they’ve done this to me. It only happened to my wife when she was browsing. My data Cap has hit 90% this month but I haven’t seen the message. 4K Netflix is no joke and can easily make me hit 1TB.
Safari is my main browser and I recently stopped using Chrome. I believe my wife uses Chrome. Maybe this doesn’t work on Safari?
Safari is my main browser and I recently stopped using Chrome. I believe my wife uses Chrome. Maybe this doesn’t work on Safari?
peterwwillis(1)
jbob2000(5)
Why not get a $5/mo VPS and use VPN?
This is a valid work around for an invalid problem.
If your ISP is tampering with packets, that is the anti-pattern that needs to be remediated ASAP.
In my opinion, the only packet change behavior that an ISP should be involved in is adhering to QoS headers. 0x08, it's bulk. 0x04 reliability, 0x10 low latency. And if they want to charge me more for 0x04, that is fine if it's clearly spelled out in the contract.
If your ISP is tampering with packets, that is the anti-pattern that needs to be remediated ASAP.
In my opinion, the only packet change behavior that an ISP should be involved in is adhering to QoS headers. 0x08, it's bulk. 0x04 reliability, 0x10 low latency. And if they want to charge me more for 0x04, that is fine if it's clearly spelled out in the contract.
How is the problem invalid? I mean, seriously - those guys spend a lot of money greasing the wheels of your local town council, and they gotta' put food on their plates like everybuddy else.
The problem is invalid, because it is not a "problem". It is an "incident". Specifically a security incident that needs remediation.
I'm paying plenty for internet. It's simple really, transmit my packet from point a to point b. Don't mutate it.
Doing this doesn't change the fact that comcast is messing with http packets.
A few weeks (months?) back there was an article about ongoing litigation on if websites are required to have accessibility compliance under the ADA act. I would be very happy to see Xfinity sued for this practice under that precedent and hopefully any injection would be considered a violation.
Status of supreme court case: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dominos-pizza-ll...