Why and how to secure your Facebook and Twitter browsing

In October in 2010, Firesheep made it easy for anyone on the same unsecured wireless network as you to take over your Twitter or Facebook session. This was possible because neither Twitter nor Facebook had a default secure browsing (SSL) setting.

Twitter users complained that you actually had to type “s” in your browser bar (like this: https://twitter.com) to secure your session. While Facebook offered no secured browsing setting at all. So Facebook rushed out an https solution in early 2011.

Then  Ashton Kutcher—who has replaced Tom from MySpace as everyone’s friend on the Internet—had his Twitter hacked at a TED conference, allegedly. I say allegedly because the tweets—one of which said “Dude, where’s my SSL?” –are still online and Kutcher clearly has control of the account. A little over a month later, Twitter added the default https option.

Sidejacking—while likely illegal and definitely unethical—offers hackers more potential for mischief than financial gain.

If you use unsecured wireless without a VPN, which isn’t a great idea, using URLs that begin with https is the only way to protect your account from a trouble maker. You’ll notice your bank and most login pages automatically send you to a secured page.

If you are a Facebook or Twitter user who ever uses unsecured networks, you should activate secured browsing now. Once you use secured browsing in Facebook and Twitter, not only will your session activity be secured but you’ll also automatically get a secured page when you log in via any browser you’ve used since you secured your account.

(Default secure browsing is only reliable when using Facebook and Twitter through a web browser. From what I see, Facebook mobile apps do not use  SSL. Official Twitter apps will use SSL by default if you select the option, but you have to check if your third-party apps offers this feature.)

How to turn on secure browsing in Facebook

(Warning: This feature may slow your Facebook browsing experience. So you may not want to use it if you are in a secured network or use a VPN. )

Go to Account.


Account Settings.

By Account Security click “Change”.

Under “Secure Browsing (https)”, click the box that says “Browse Facebook on a secure connection (https) whenever possible”.

Now, if you ever use an app, you’ll see this message.

WARNING: If you click continue, you are no longer in secured browsing. Whoops.

As soon as you finish with the app, go back and repeat this process. You need to reactivate the page before you log out to a secured login page the next time you want to use your Facebook account.

How to turn on secure browsing in Twitter

While logged in to Twitter via a web browser, go to settings.

Next to “HTTPS Only ” click the box that says “Always use HTTPS. ”

Click “Save”.

Dude, there’s your SSL.

Cheers,

Jason

More posts from this topic

parent and child

We need more than just age limits to protect our children in social media

The European Union is preparing a new data protection package. It is making headlines because there are plans to raise the age limit for digital consent from 13 to 16 years. This has sometimes been describes as the age limit for joining social media. To be precise, member states could choose their age limit within this range. Younger kids would need parental consent for creating an account in social media and similar networks. We can probably agree that minors’ use of the internet can be problematic. But is an age limit really the right way to go? It’s easy to think of potential problems when children and teenagers start using social media. The platforms are powerful communication tools, for good and bad. Cyberbullying. Grooming. Inappropriate content. Unwanted marketing. Getting addicted. Stealing time and attention from homework or other hobbies. And perhaps most important. Social media often becomes a sphere of freedom, a world totally insulated from the parents and their silly rules. In social media you can choose your contacts. There’s no function that enables parents to check what the kids are doing, unless they accept their parents as friends. And the parents are often on totally different services. Facebook is quickly becoming the boring place where mom and granny hangs out. Youngsters tend to be on Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Periscope or whatnot instead. But is restricting their access to social media the right thing to do? What do we achieve by requiring parental consent before they sign up? This would mean that parents, in theory, have a chance to prevent their children from being on social media. And that’s good, right? Well, this is a flawed logic in several ways. First, it’s easy to lie about your age. Social media in generic has very poor authentication mechanisms for people signing up. They are not verifying your true identity, and can’t verify your age either. Kids learn very quickly that signing up just requires some simple math. Subtract 16, or whatever, from the current year when asked for year of birth. The other problem is that parental consent requirements don’t give parents a real choice. Electronic communication is becoming a cornerstone in our way to interact with other people. It can’t be stressed enough how important it is for our children to learn the rules and skills of this new world. Preventing kids from participating in the community where all their friends are could isolate them, and potentially cause more harm than the dark side of social media. What we need isn’t age limits and parental consent. It’s better control of the content our children are dealing with and tools for parents to follow what they are doing. Social media is currently designed for adults and everyone have tools to protect their privacy. But the same tools become a problem when children join, as they also prevent parents from keeping an eye on their offspring. Parental consent becomes significant when the social media platforms start to recognize parent-child relationships. New accounts for children under a specified age could mandatorily be linked to an adult’s account. The adult would have some level of visibility into what the child is doing, but maybe not full visibility. Metadata, like whom the child is communicating with, would be a good start. Remember that children deserve s certain level of privacy too. Parents could of course still neglect their responsibilities, but they would at least have a tool if they want to keep an eye on how their kids are doing online. And then we still have the problem with the lack of age verification. All this is naturally in vain if the kids can sign up as adults. On top of that, children’s social media preferences are very volatile. They do not stay loyally on one service all the time. Having proper parent-child relationships in one service is not enough, it need to be the norm on all services. So we are still very far from a social media world that really takes parents’ and children’s needs into account. Just demanding parental consent when kids are signing up does not really do much good. It’s of course nice to see EU take some baby steps towards a safer net for our children. But this is unfortunately an area where baby steps isn’t enough. We need a couple of giant leaps as soon as possible.   Safe surfing, Micke   Image by skyseeker    

December 17, 2015
BY 
12239414_10153218237222006_2269904696488860123_o

A temporary profile picture but permanent app permissions

We are all sad about what’s happened in Paris last Friday. It’s said that the terrorist attacks have changed the world. That is no doubt true, and one aspect of that is how social media becomes more important in situations like this. Facebook has deployed two functions that help people deal with this kind of crisis. The Safety Check feature collects info about people in the area of a disaster, and if they are safe or not. This feature was initially created for natural disasters. Facebook received criticism for using it in Paris but not for the Beirut bombings a day earlier. It turned out that their explanation is quite good. Beirut made them think if the feature should be used for terror attacks as well, and they were ready to change the policy when Paris happened. The other feature lets you use a temporary profile picture with some appropriate overlay, the tricolor in this case. This is a nice and easy way to show sympathy. And it became popular very quickly, at least among my friends. The downside is however that it seemed so popular that those without a tricolor were sticking out. Some people started asking them why they aren’t supporting the victims in Paris? The whole thing has lost part of its meaning when it goes that far. We can’t know anymore who genuinely supports France and who changed the picture because of the social pressure. I changed my picture too. And it was interesting to see how the feature was implemented. The Facebook app for iOS 9 launched a wizard that let me make a picture with the tricolor overlay. Either by snapping a new selfie or using one of my previous profile pictures. I guess the latter is what most people want to do. But Facebook’s wizard requires permissions to use the camera and refuses to start until the user has given that permission. Even if you just want to modify an existing picture. Even more spooky. The wizard also asked for permission to use the microphone when I first run it. That is, needless to say, totally unnecessary when creating a profile picture. And Facebook has been accused of misusing audio data. It’s doubtful if they really do, but the only sure thing is that they don’t if you deny Facebook microphone access. But that was probably a temporary glitch, I was not able to reproduce the mic request when resetting everything and running the wizard again. Your new profile picture may be temporary, but any rights you grant the Facebook app are permanent. I’m not saying that this is a sinister plot to get more data about you, it may be just sloppy programming. But it is anyway an excellent reminder about how important the app permissions are. We should learn to become more critical when granting, or denying, rights like this. This is the case for any app, but especially Facebook as its whole business model is based on scooping up data about us users. Time for an app permission check. On your iOS device, go to Settings and Privacy. Here you can see the categories of info that an app can request. Go through them and think critically about if a certain app really needs its permissions to provide value to you. Check Facebook's camera and microphone permissions if you have used the temporary profile picture feature. And one last thing. Make it a habit to check the privacy settings now and then.   [caption id="attachment_8637" align="aligncenter" width="169"] This is how far you get unless you agree to grant Facebook camera access.[/caption]   [caption id="attachment_8638" align="aligncenter" width="169"] The Settings, Privacy page. Under each category you find the apps that have requested access, and can select if the request is granted or denied.[/caption]     Safe surfing, Micke   PS. The temporary profile picture function is BTW simpler in Facebook's web interface. You just see your current profile picture with the overlay. You can pan and zoom before saving. I like that approach much more.   Photo by Markus Nikander and iPhone screen captures    

November 16, 2015
BY 
facebook login

Using Facebook to log in – safe or not?

Open up your favorite web site and you can see what this is about right away. There are in many cases two options, an ordinary log-in and “Log in with Facebook”. Have you been using the Facebook option? It is quite convenient, isn’t it? I was talking to a journalist about privacy a while ago. One of the hints that ended up in the final story was that it isn’t necessary a good idea to link your other accounts to Facebook. And that raised questions. Some people have wondered why it is so, and pointed out that we at F-Secure also provide that option in our portal for F-Secure SAFE, MY SAFE. So let’s take a closer look. Is it good, bad or ugly? Here’s the important points: Facebook acts like an authentication service in this scenario. One single password opens the door to many services. This is indeed convenient and reduces the need to remember a lot of different passwords. But you should use different passwords on every service to reduce the damage if a password is leaked. That could happen for example in a phishing scam. Using Facebook’s log-in everywhere is putting all your eggs in the same basket. The worst thing you can do is to use the same user ID and password on all your sites, but *not* the Facebook function. A leak in any of them could give the attackers access to all your systems. Using the Facebook login instead is in this case a way to *improve* security. Facebook's servers are well secured, a leak from them is highly unlikely. It may reveal private info from Facebook to the other service unnecessarily. Most of us just click OK when Facebook asks for permission to give data to the other service, without thinking about what we really approve. Facebook will get yet another sensor to profile you. They will know that you use a certain service, when and how often you use it, and on what kind of device and where in the world you are when using it. Most people are on Facebook under their real name, but you may want to use other services more anonymously. If you don’t want it to be publicly known that you use a particular service, then you shouldn’t use your real-name Facebook account to log in. Remember that privacy on-line is not just about how much private data you reveal. It’s also very much about whom you reveal it to and how fragmented your digital footprint is. Preventing different services from consolidating your data improves your privacy. So should I use this feature at all? Maybe, it depends. There are some downsides, but it's a convenient way to log in, that can’t be denied. But first, the security-savvy approach is to instead use separate strong passwords on every site and a password manager. It’s a little bit of work when you set it up, but it is really the most secure approach. Don't use Facebook log-in for critical services. Those are sites containing sensitive information or where you make payments. They always deserve a strong unique password. But there's also a large number of sites that aren't that critical. Your on-line newspaper for example. If crooks get your Facebook password then your compromised newspaper account will be the smallest of your problems. Go ahead and use Facebook log-in for those if you find it convenient, but keep in mind the privacy concerns listed above. It's all about how picky you are about privacy. And don’t forget to review the permissions you have givens to apps and sites in Facebook. Go to Settings / Apps and you see the list of approved apps. Remove anything that sounds fishy, that you can’t remember approving or that you aren’t using frequently. Don’t be afraid to remove too much. The worst thing that can happen is that an app or site stops working and asks you to give it Facebook permissions again. Open all remaining apps and review what permissions they have. Think about what they do for you and if they really need all their permissions. Fix the permissions if needed. To wrap up. The Facebook log-in feature is not a security problem. Facebook's security system is solid and your security is not in jeopardy if you use it. But I still recommend separate passwords for the critical sites. The question marks are on the privacy front instead. Linking sites together contributes to forming a more comprehensive digital footprint. It's up to you to decide how worried you are about it. With this info you should be able to make an educated decision about where Facebook log-in can and can't be used.   [caption id="attachment_8629" align="aligncenter" width="266"] Jamendo's permissions in Facebook. This is the basic permissions most well-behaving apps/sites ask for. If the site asks for more, consider carefully if it really is needed.[/caption]   Safe surfing, Micke     Images by C_osett and Facebook screen capture

November 12, 2015
BY