If the Charles SSL Proxy shows me sensitive data, is that data insecure/exposed?What is the interest of Reverse Proxy?Anonymous proxy over SSLMan-in-the-middle Blue Coat proxy SSL or what?SSL Communication and ProxyProblems with intermediate SSL certificates and SSL proxyReverse Proxy SSLReverse Proxy SSL containerData exposed through campus proxyIf a computer is connected to a proxy, will all outgoing traffic go through that proxy?SSL Proxy as a man in the middle

If the Charles SSL Proxy shows me sensitive data, is that data insecure/exposed?

What to call a small, open stone or cement reservoir that supplies fresh water from a spring or other natural source?

Bash - Execute two commands and get exit status 1 if first fails

How did Arya and the Hound get into King's Landing so easily?

Managing heat dissipation in a magic wand

What should I wear to go and sign an employment contract?

How did Jean Parisot de Valette, 49th Grand Master of the Order of Malta, die?

How to prove the emptiness of intersection of two context free languages is undecidable?

Does a windmilling propeller create more drag than a stopped propeller in an engine out scenario?

How to use Screen Sharing if I don't know the remote Mac's IP address

Is my company merging branches wrong?

Is there a realtime, uncut video of Saturn V ignition through tower clear?

Can't think of a good word or term to describe not feeling or thinking

How can I prevent Bash expansion from passing files starting with "-" as argument?

Good examples of "two is easy, three is hard" in computational sciences

How could the B-29 bomber back up under its own power?

What's is the easiest way to purchase a stock and hold it

Do most Taxis give Receipts in London?

Will this series of events work to drown the Tarrasque?

Why use nominative in Coniugatio periphrastica passiva?

How to become an Editorial board member?

What are the domains of the multiplication and unit morphisms of a monoid object?

tikz: 5 squares on a row, roman numbered 1 -> 5

How to choose the correct exposure for flower photography?



If the Charles SSL Proxy shows me sensitive data, is that data insecure/exposed?


What is the interest of Reverse Proxy?Anonymous proxy over SSLMan-in-the-middle Blue Coat proxy SSL or what?SSL Communication and ProxyProblems with intermediate SSL certificates and SSL proxyReverse Proxy SSLReverse Proxy SSL containerData exposed through campus proxyIf a computer is connected to a proxy, will all outgoing traffic go through that proxy?SSL Proxy as a man in the middle






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








17















Today I was exploring a website used for keeping track of student grades and everything related to school. Basically like a school progress tracker for your child which is used by 90% of schools in my country.



I fired up Charles proxy and connected my phone to it and installed Charles's root certificate so I can use https (the site uses it). Anyway, I logged into the site and checked what Charles captured.



It captured a simple ajax call with 4 fields containing all the login credentials. Here's a screenshot:



enter image description here



Everything is even labeled - uporabnik means "user" and geslo means "password"
So if I am understanding this correctly (I am really really just a beginner), everyone that manages to capture this can look at it?



Is this only possible with a proxy or can wireshark for example also do this and just capture packets over wifi?



Are my assumptions true and if they are, what should I do about it?










share|improve this question









New contributor



K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 8





    But how would anyone capture this without installing the root certificate on your phone first?

    – Luc
    yesterday






  • 39





    Protip: If you censor an url, do it right. It's pretty easy to deduct what the URL is.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday











  • @Luc Oh, I see what you mean. Im really gonna have to look into how Charles works. Haven't tought about it that way. I guess it is safe then.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday












  • @MechMK1 got it. Was in a hurry, sorry.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 3





    note that you can view the same info with the browser's built-in developer tools.

    – dandavis
    yesterday

















17















Today I was exploring a website used for keeping track of student grades and everything related to school. Basically like a school progress tracker for your child which is used by 90% of schools in my country.



I fired up Charles proxy and connected my phone to it and installed Charles's root certificate so I can use https (the site uses it). Anyway, I logged into the site and checked what Charles captured.



It captured a simple ajax call with 4 fields containing all the login credentials. Here's a screenshot:



enter image description here



Everything is even labeled - uporabnik means "user" and geslo means "password"
So if I am understanding this correctly (I am really really just a beginner), everyone that manages to capture this can look at it?



Is this only possible with a proxy or can wireshark for example also do this and just capture packets over wifi?



Are my assumptions true and if they are, what should I do about it?










share|improve this question









New contributor



K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 8





    But how would anyone capture this without installing the root certificate on your phone first?

    – Luc
    yesterday






  • 39





    Protip: If you censor an url, do it right. It's pretty easy to deduct what the URL is.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday











  • @Luc Oh, I see what you mean. Im really gonna have to look into how Charles works. Haven't tought about it that way. I guess it is safe then.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday












  • @MechMK1 got it. Was in a hurry, sorry.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 3





    note that you can view the same info with the browser's built-in developer tools.

    – dandavis
    yesterday













17












17








17








Today I was exploring a website used for keeping track of student grades and everything related to school. Basically like a school progress tracker for your child which is used by 90% of schools in my country.



I fired up Charles proxy and connected my phone to it and installed Charles's root certificate so I can use https (the site uses it). Anyway, I logged into the site and checked what Charles captured.



It captured a simple ajax call with 4 fields containing all the login credentials. Here's a screenshot:



enter image description here



Everything is even labeled - uporabnik means "user" and geslo means "password"
So if I am understanding this correctly (I am really really just a beginner), everyone that manages to capture this can look at it?



Is this only possible with a proxy or can wireshark for example also do this and just capture packets over wifi?



Are my assumptions true and if they are, what should I do about it?










share|improve this question









New contributor



K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











Today I was exploring a website used for keeping track of student grades and everything related to school. Basically like a school progress tracker for your child which is used by 90% of schools in my country.



I fired up Charles proxy and connected my phone to it and installed Charles's root certificate so I can use https (the site uses it). Anyway, I logged into the site and checked what Charles captured.



It captured a simple ajax call with 4 fields containing all the login credentials. Here's a screenshot:



enter image description here



Everything is even labeled - uporabnik means "user" and geslo means "password"
So if I am understanding this correctly (I am really really just a beginner), everyone that manages to capture this can look at it?



Is this only possible with a proxy or can wireshark for example also do this and just capture packets over wifi?



Are my assumptions true and if they are, what should I do about it?







authentication proxy websites






share|improve this question









New contributor



K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question









New contributor



K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 35 mins ago









Charles Duffy

30729




30729






New contributor



K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked yesterday









K.VovkK.Vovk

8814




8814




New contributor



K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




K.Vovk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









  • 8





    But how would anyone capture this without installing the root certificate on your phone first?

    – Luc
    yesterday






  • 39





    Protip: If you censor an url, do it right. It's pretty easy to deduct what the URL is.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday











  • @Luc Oh, I see what you mean. Im really gonna have to look into how Charles works. Haven't tought about it that way. I guess it is safe then.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday












  • @MechMK1 got it. Was in a hurry, sorry.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 3





    note that you can view the same info with the browser's built-in developer tools.

    – dandavis
    yesterday












  • 8





    But how would anyone capture this without installing the root certificate on your phone first?

    – Luc
    yesterday






  • 39





    Protip: If you censor an url, do it right. It's pretty easy to deduct what the URL is.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday











  • @Luc Oh, I see what you mean. Im really gonna have to look into how Charles works. Haven't tought about it that way. I guess it is safe then.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday












  • @MechMK1 got it. Was in a hurry, sorry.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 3





    note that you can view the same info with the browser's built-in developer tools.

    – dandavis
    yesterday







8




8





But how would anyone capture this without installing the root certificate on your phone first?

– Luc
yesterday





But how would anyone capture this without installing the root certificate on your phone first?

– Luc
yesterday




39




39





Protip: If you censor an url, do it right. It's pretty easy to deduct what the URL is.

– MechMK1
yesterday





Protip: If you censor an url, do it right. It's pretty easy to deduct what the URL is.

– MechMK1
yesterday













@Luc Oh, I see what you mean. Im really gonna have to look into how Charles works. Haven't tought about it that way. I guess it is safe then.

– K.Vovk
yesterday






@Luc Oh, I see what you mean. Im really gonna have to look into how Charles works. Haven't tought about it that way. I guess it is safe then.

– K.Vovk
yesterday














@MechMK1 got it. Was in a hurry, sorry.

– K.Vovk
yesterday





@MechMK1 got it. Was in a hurry, sorry.

– K.Vovk
yesterday




3




3





note that you can view the same info with the browser's built-in developer tools.

– dandavis
yesterday





note that you can view the same info with the browser's built-in developer tools.

– dandavis
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















41














You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what TLS does.



TLS takes the regular plain HTTP traffic and encrypts it and adds integrity checks. Together with the certificate of the server, this ensures




  • Confidentiality: An attacker who captures the network traffic can not read the content of the communication.


  • Integrity: If an attacker modifies the network traffic, this would result in errors.


  • Authenticity: You can be sure that your communication partner is the server you think you communicate with. (We get to this in a second.)

If you were to look at the underlying HTTP communication, you would see your username and password in plain text, because this is what you have sent to the server.



What does the proxy do now?



If you use a TLS Proxy such as Charles, you essentially communicate with the proxy and the proxy communicates with the web server. So what stops an attacker from just using a TLS proxy? The certificate!



When you installed the TLS Proxy, the proxy generated a new CA-certificate, which you then imported. This means you gave the proxy the authority to create a certificate for any domain. For the purpose of being a proxy, this is fine.



An attacker however would have to make you import their certificate (or steal the private key of yours!) so you would trust certificates by their proxy.



So, is this an issue now?



No, it's not. Everything is working as it's supposed to.
At the end of the day, when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website.






share|improve this answer























  • One potential issue might be if the attacker learns you are using an HTTPS proxy on their machine, and uses their own instance of the proxy to craft a certificate your machine will accept.

    – John Dvorak
    yesterday






  • 3





    @JohnDvorak Certificates are unique per installation. If I use a proxy, that does not make me vulnerable to other people using the same proxy, as their keys will differ from mine.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday






  • 2





    Thank you. I completely understand now.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 4





    @MechMK1 Well, at least they should be unique per installation. Of course people managed to mess even this simple thing up, so be careful about what certificates you import. arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/…

    – Peter Harmann
    yesterday







  • 2





    when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website. unless you use an authentication scheme like SQRL

    – Expired Data
    yesterday


















4














How do you think most web sites handles login? By sending usernames and passwords in POST data and recognizing the logged in user with session cookies afterwards. There's no reason for hashing the credentials client side, and even less to obfuscate the variable names: it would be equally easy to figure out that uporabnik or ugcbuzsq is a variable that carries usernames.



That's why the connection is encrypted using TLS, and that's also why you weren't able to see this information before you installed the Charles proxy's root certificate.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    I see. TLS takes care of security so even if I can see the password, others cannot as that would require deeper access in my phone. Thats why the certificate is there

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 1





    @K.Vovk no, that is not why the certificate is there. The certificate allows you to identify whether you are connecting to the server you think you are. For example, if you access www.google.com, your browser will open an encrypted connection to google, but how do you know it is really google and not just a hacker that's impersonating them?

    – fabspro
    yesterday






  • 4





    … and that is precisely why you had to install Charles's certificate in the first place to make HTTPS work again. Because Charles is nothing but a man-in-the-middle-attacker in this scenario, and if you didn't install its root certificate, you would get a security warning in your browser, and it would not send the data without warning you.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    yesterday











  • Oooooh, got it. Thank you for your time.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "162"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






K.Vovk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f210356%2fif-the-charles-ssl-proxy-shows-me-sensitive-data-is-that-data-insecure-exposed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









41














You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what TLS does.



TLS takes the regular plain HTTP traffic and encrypts it and adds integrity checks. Together with the certificate of the server, this ensures




  • Confidentiality: An attacker who captures the network traffic can not read the content of the communication.


  • Integrity: If an attacker modifies the network traffic, this would result in errors.


  • Authenticity: You can be sure that your communication partner is the server you think you communicate with. (We get to this in a second.)

If you were to look at the underlying HTTP communication, you would see your username and password in plain text, because this is what you have sent to the server.



What does the proxy do now?



If you use a TLS Proxy such as Charles, you essentially communicate with the proxy and the proxy communicates with the web server. So what stops an attacker from just using a TLS proxy? The certificate!



When you installed the TLS Proxy, the proxy generated a new CA-certificate, which you then imported. This means you gave the proxy the authority to create a certificate for any domain. For the purpose of being a proxy, this is fine.



An attacker however would have to make you import their certificate (or steal the private key of yours!) so you would trust certificates by their proxy.



So, is this an issue now?



No, it's not. Everything is working as it's supposed to.
At the end of the day, when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website.






share|improve this answer























  • One potential issue might be if the attacker learns you are using an HTTPS proxy on their machine, and uses their own instance of the proxy to craft a certificate your machine will accept.

    – John Dvorak
    yesterday






  • 3





    @JohnDvorak Certificates are unique per installation. If I use a proxy, that does not make me vulnerable to other people using the same proxy, as their keys will differ from mine.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday






  • 2





    Thank you. I completely understand now.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 4





    @MechMK1 Well, at least they should be unique per installation. Of course people managed to mess even this simple thing up, so be careful about what certificates you import. arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/…

    – Peter Harmann
    yesterday







  • 2





    when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website. unless you use an authentication scheme like SQRL

    – Expired Data
    yesterday















41














You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what TLS does.



TLS takes the regular plain HTTP traffic and encrypts it and adds integrity checks. Together with the certificate of the server, this ensures




  • Confidentiality: An attacker who captures the network traffic can not read the content of the communication.


  • Integrity: If an attacker modifies the network traffic, this would result in errors.


  • Authenticity: You can be sure that your communication partner is the server you think you communicate with. (We get to this in a second.)

If you were to look at the underlying HTTP communication, you would see your username and password in plain text, because this is what you have sent to the server.



What does the proxy do now?



If you use a TLS Proxy such as Charles, you essentially communicate with the proxy and the proxy communicates with the web server. So what stops an attacker from just using a TLS proxy? The certificate!



When you installed the TLS Proxy, the proxy generated a new CA-certificate, which you then imported. This means you gave the proxy the authority to create a certificate for any domain. For the purpose of being a proxy, this is fine.



An attacker however would have to make you import their certificate (or steal the private key of yours!) so you would trust certificates by their proxy.



So, is this an issue now?



No, it's not. Everything is working as it's supposed to.
At the end of the day, when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website.






share|improve this answer























  • One potential issue might be if the attacker learns you are using an HTTPS proxy on their machine, and uses their own instance of the proxy to craft a certificate your machine will accept.

    – John Dvorak
    yesterday






  • 3





    @JohnDvorak Certificates are unique per installation. If I use a proxy, that does not make me vulnerable to other people using the same proxy, as their keys will differ from mine.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday






  • 2





    Thank you. I completely understand now.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 4





    @MechMK1 Well, at least they should be unique per installation. Of course people managed to mess even this simple thing up, so be careful about what certificates you import. arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/…

    – Peter Harmann
    yesterday







  • 2





    when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website. unless you use an authentication scheme like SQRL

    – Expired Data
    yesterday













41












41








41







You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what TLS does.



TLS takes the regular plain HTTP traffic and encrypts it and adds integrity checks. Together with the certificate of the server, this ensures




  • Confidentiality: An attacker who captures the network traffic can not read the content of the communication.


  • Integrity: If an attacker modifies the network traffic, this would result in errors.


  • Authenticity: You can be sure that your communication partner is the server you think you communicate with. (We get to this in a second.)

If you were to look at the underlying HTTP communication, you would see your username and password in plain text, because this is what you have sent to the server.



What does the proxy do now?



If you use a TLS Proxy such as Charles, you essentially communicate with the proxy and the proxy communicates with the web server. So what stops an attacker from just using a TLS proxy? The certificate!



When you installed the TLS Proxy, the proxy generated a new CA-certificate, which you then imported. This means you gave the proxy the authority to create a certificate for any domain. For the purpose of being a proxy, this is fine.



An attacker however would have to make you import their certificate (or steal the private key of yours!) so you would trust certificates by their proxy.



So, is this an issue now?



No, it's not. Everything is working as it's supposed to.
At the end of the day, when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website.






share|improve this answer













You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what TLS does.



TLS takes the regular plain HTTP traffic and encrypts it and adds integrity checks. Together with the certificate of the server, this ensures




  • Confidentiality: An attacker who captures the network traffic can not read the content of the communication.


  • Integrity: If an attacker modifies the network traffic, this would result in errors.


  • Authenticity: You can be sure that your communication partner is the server you think you communicate with. (We get to this in a second.)

If you were to look at the underlying HTTP communication, you would see your username and password in plain text, because this is what you have sent to the server.



What does the proxy do now?



If you use a TLS Proxy such as Charles, you essentially communicate with the proxy and the proxy communicates with the web server. So what stops an attacker from just using a TLS proxy? The certificate!



When you installed the TLS Proxy, the proxy generated a new CA-certificate, which you then imported. This means you gave the proxy the authority to create a certificate for any domain. For the purpose of being a proxy, this is fine.



An attacker however would have to make you import their certificate (or steal the private key of yours!) so you would trust certificates by their proxy.



So, is this an issue now?



No, it's not. Everything is working as it's supposed to.
At the end of the day, when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









MechMK1MechMK1

2,2731626




2,2731626












  • One potential issue might be if the attacker learns you are using an HTTPS proxy on their machine, and uses their own instance of the proxy to craft a certificate your machine will accept.

    – John Dvorak
    yesterday






  • 3





    @JohnDvorak Certificates are unique per installation. If I use a proxy, that does not make me vulnerable to other people using the same proxy, as their keys will differ from mine.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday






  • 2





    Thank you. I completely understand now.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 4





    @MechMK1 Well, at least they should be unique per installation. Of course people managed to mess even this simple thing up, so be careful about what certificates you import. arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/…

    – Peter Harmann
    yesterday







  • 2





    when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website. unless you use an authentication scheme like SQRL

    – Expired Data
    yesterday

















  • One potential issue might be if the attacker learns you are using an HTTPS proxy on their machine, and uses their own instance of the proxy to craft a certificate your machine will accept.

    – John Dvorak
    yesterday






  • 3





    @JohnDvorak Certificates are unique per installation. If I use a proxy, that does not make me vulnerable to other people using the same proxy, as their keys will differ from mine.

    – MechMK1
    yesterday






  • 2





    Thank you. I completely understand now.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 4





    @MechMK1 Well, at least they should be unique per installation. Of course people managed to mess even this simple thing up, so be careful about what certificates you import. arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/…

    – Peter Harmann
    yesterday







  • 2





    when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website. unless you use an authentication scheme like SQRL

    – Expired Data
    yesterday
















One potential issue might be if the attacker learns you are using an HTTPS proxy on their machine, and uses their own instance of the proxy to craft a certificate your machine will accept.

– John Dvorak
yesterday





One potential issue might be if the attacker learns you are using an HTTPS proxy on their machine, and uses their own instance of the proxy to craft a certificate your machine will accept.

– John Dvorak
yesterday




3




3





@JohnDvorak Certificates are unique per installation. If I use a proxy, that does not make me vulnerable to other people using the same proxy, as their keys will differ from mine.

– MechMK1
yesterday





@JohnDvorak Certificates are unique per installation. If I use a proxy, that does not make me vulnerable to other people using the same proxy, as their keys will differ from mine.

– MechMK1
yesterday




2




2





Thank you. I completely understand now.

– K.Vovk
yesterday





Thank you. I completely understand now.

– K.Vovk
yesterday




4




4





@MechMK1 Well, at least they should be unique per installation. Of course people managed to mess even this simple thing up, so be careful about what certificates you import. arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/…

– Peter Harmann
yesterday






@MechMK1 Well, at least they should be unique per installation. Of course people managed to mess even this simple thing up, so be careful about what certificates you import. arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/…

– Peter Harmann
yesterday





2




2





when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website. unless you use an authentication scheme like SQRL

– Expired Data
yesterday





when you send your username and password to a website, it somehow has to actually reach that website. unless you use an authentication scheme like SQRL

– Expired Data
yesterday













4














How do you think most web sites handles login? By sending usernames and passwords in POST data and recognizing the logged in user with session cookies afterwards. There's no reason for hashing the credentials client side, and even less to obfuscate the variable names: it would be equally easy to figure out that uporabnik or ugcbuzsq is a variable that carries usernames.



That's why the connection is encrypted using TLS, and that's also why you weren't able to see this information before you installed the Charles proxy's root certificate.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    I see. TLS takes care of security so even if I can see the password, others cannot as that would require deeper access in my phone. Thats why the certificate is there

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 1





    @K.Vovk no, that is not why the certificate is there. The certificate allows you to identify whether you are connecting to the server you think you are. For example, if you access www.google.com, your browser will open an encrypted connection to google, but how do you know it is really google and not just a hacker that's impersonating them?

    – fabspro
    yesterday






  • 4





    … and that is precisely why you had to install Charles's certificate in the first place to make HTTPS work again. Because Charles is nothing but a man-in-the-middle-attacker in this scenario, and if you didn't install its root certificate, you would get a security warning in your browser, and it would not send the data without warning you.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    yesterday











  • Oooooh, got it. Thank you for your time.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday















4














How do you think most web sites handles login? By sending usernames and passwords in POST data and recognizing the logged in user with session cookies afterwards. There's no reason for hashing the credentials client side, and even less to obfuscate the variable names: it would be equally easy to figure out that uporabnik or ugcbuzsq is a variable that carries usernames.



That's why the connection is encrypted using TLS, and that's also why you weren't able to see this information before you installed the Charles proxy's root certificate.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    I see. TLS takes care of security so even if I can see the password, others cannot as that would require deeper access in my phone. Thats why the certificate is there

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 1





    @K.Vovk no, that is not why the certificate is there. The certificate allows you to identify whether you are connecting to the server you think you are. For example, if you access www.google.com, your browser will open an encrypted connection to google, but how do you know it is really google and not just a hacker that's impersonating them?

    – fabspro
    yesterday






  • 4





    … and that is precisely why you had to install Charles's certificate in the first place to make HTTPS work again. Because Charles is nothing but a man-in-the-middle-attacker in this scenario, and if you didn't install its root certificate, you would get a security warning in your browser, and it would not send the data without warning you.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    yesterday











  • Oooooh, got it. Thank you for your time.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday













4












4








4







How do you think most web sites handles login? By sending usernames and passwords in POST data and recognizing the logged in user with session cookies afterwards. There's no reason for hashing the credentials client side, and even less to obfuscate the variable names: it would be equally easy to figure out that uporabnik or ugcbuzsq is a variable that carries usernames.



That's why the connection is encrypted using TLS, and that's also why you weren't able to see this information before you installed the Charles proxy's root certificate.






share|improve this answer













How do you think most web sites handles login? By sending usernames and passwords in POST data and recognizing the logged in user with session cookies afterwards. There's no reason for hashing the credentials client side, and even less to obfuscate the variable names: it would be equally easy to figure out that uporabnik or ugcbuzsq is a variable that carries usernames.



That's why the connection is encrypted using TLS, and that's also why you weren't able to see this information before you installed the Charles proxy's root certificate.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Esa JokinenEsa Jokinen

4,6061623




4,6061623







  • 1





    I see. TLS takes care of security so even if I can see the password, others cannot as that would require deeper access in my phone. Thats why the certificate is there

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 1





    @K.Vovk no, that is not why the certificate is there. The certificate allows you to identify whether you are connecting to the server you think you are. For example, if you access www.google.com, your browser will open an encrypted connection to google, but how do you know it is really google and not just a hacker that's impersonating them?

    – fabspro
    yesterday






  • 4





    … and that is precisely why you had to install Charles's certificate in the first place to make HTTPS work again. Because Charles is nothing but a man-in-the-middle-attacker in this scenario, and if you didn't install its root certificate, you would get a security warning in your browser, and it would not send the data without warning you.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    yesterday











  • Oooooh, got it. Thank you for your time.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday












  • 1





    I see. TLS takes care of security so even if I can see the password, others cannot as that would require deeper access in my phone. Thats why the certificate is there

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday






  • 1





    @K.Vovk no, that is not why the certificate is there. The certificate allows you to identify whether you are connecting to the server you think you are. For example, if you access www.google.com, your browser will open an encrypted connection to google, but how do you know it is really google and not just a hacker that's impersonating them?

    – fabspro
    yesterday






  • 4





    … and that is precisely why you had to install Charles's certificate in the first place to make HTTPS work again. Because Charles is nothing but a man-in-the-middle-attacker in this scenario, and if you didn't install its root certificate, you would get a security warning in your browser, and it would not send the data without warning you.

    – Jörg W Mittag
    yesterday











  • Oooooh, got it. Thank you for your time.

    – K.Vovk
    yesterday







1




1





I see. TLS takes care of security so even if I can see the password, others cannot as that would require deeper access in my phone. Thats why the certificate is there

– K.Vovk
yesterday





I see. TLS takes care of security so even if I can see the password, others cannot as that would require deeper access in my phone. Thats why the certificate is there

– K.Vovk
yesterday




1




1





@K.Vovk no, that is not why the certificate is there. The certificate allows you to identify whether you are connecting to the server you think you are. For example, if you access www.google.com, your browser will open an encrypted connection to google, but how do you know it is really google and not just a hacker that's impersonating them?

– fabspro
yesterday





@K.Vovk no, that is not why the certificate is there. The certificate allows you to identify whether you are connecting to the server you think you are. For example, if you access www.google.com, your browser will open an encrypted connection to google, but how do you know it is really google and not just a hacker that's impersonating them?

– fabspro
yesterday




4




4





… and that is precisely why you had to install Charles's certificate in the first place to make HTTPS work again. Because Charles is nothing but a man-in-the-middle-attacker in this scenario, and if you didn't install its root certificate, you would get a security warning in your browser, and it would not send the data without warning you.

– Jörg W Mittag
yesterday





… and that is precisely why you had to install Charles's certificate in the first place to make HTTPS work again. Because Charles is nothing but a man-in-the-middle-attacker in this scenario, and if you didn't install its root certificate, you would get a security warning in your browser, and it would not send the data without warning you.

– Jörg W Mittag
yesterday













Oooooh, got it. Thank you for your time.

– K.Vovk
yesterday





Oooooh, got it. Thank you for your time.

– K.Vovk
yesterday










K.Vovk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















K.Vovk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












K.Vovk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











K.Vovk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f210356%2fif-the-charles-ssl-proxy-shows-me-sensitive-data-is-that-data-insecure-exposed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480