If he's writing PHP shopping carts, he ought to at least have a basic knowledge of what SSL is
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Heartbleed bug
Collapse
X
-
You got me worried now. I have written a PHP shopping cart and had no idea what SSL was before all this news. Though I did check out the potential security issues and implement the suggested solutions, HTMLentities, limits on data length etc. so maybe I did indirectly.bloggoth
If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson) -
Didn't mean to alarm you!Originally posted by xoggoth View PostYou got me worried now. I have written a PHP shopping cart and had no idea what SSL was before all this news. Though I did check out the potential security issues and implement the suggested solutions, HTMLentities, limits on data length etc. so maybe I did indirectly.
Basically SSL is a way of securely encrypting personal data. So, as a rule of thumb, you should never enter credit card details on a site which isn't running SSL (as pg politely pointed out, in 99% of cases you see the https and padlock logo in the address bar.)
In the ideal world, all personal details (names, addresses, passwords) would be encrypted.
In the case of your site (assuming it's the one you've posted links to in the past) you're capturing name and address details over a non-secure connection, so someone could potentially 'listen' to the traffic and steal those details. You're redirecting to worldpay to get your payment details, and they are running SSL, so your customers' card details are safe.
Some sites with logins (like CUK) don't use SSL either - I'm guessing that actual passwords aren't sent, but instead a hash of the password, which is compared to a stored hash in the database. Session ids are probably thrown into the mix too, so that the hash is a combination of password and sessionId and changes as sessions expire. In theory that makes it hackable - by listening to the network traffic I could steal the hash of your password and fake a login to your session, but I couldn't actually get hold of your password. To do serious damage, I guess we'd have to steal admin's account
Last edited by mudskipper; 14 April 2014, 18:28.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Why contractors keep putting off their pension (and why I'm one of them) Today 02:43
- HMRC loan charge settlement offer: 3 things to check before you sign Yesterday 07:41
- HMRC standstill agreements extended to 72 months: why the term's doubled, and what to check before signing Jul 31 05:53
- Who owns the loans? Inside the mystery of the loan charge recall scandal Jul 30 06:20
- Umbrella company winding-up petitions in 2026: the practical guide for contractors Jul 29 05:29
- Payments on Account deadline: what contractors must do before July 31st — maybe for the final few times Jul 28 08:01
- Andy Burnham's first 100 days: five things contractors need from the new PM Jul 27 00:53
- Starmer vs Burnham on housing: What their rival plans mean for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- Burnham's housing vision vs. Starmer's home-buying reforms: what it means for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- In Khalil v Innovate Transport, a limited company contractor wasn’t a worker and was on £2.30 — not £230 Jul 21 07:58

Comment