> Nobody is attacked using MITM, which is the only thing HTTPS prevents
The only thing?
I can think of four others off hand. That said, the “only” thing is pretty important in itself.
The only thing?
I can think of four others off hand. That said, the “only” thing is pretty important in itself.
You know what people get bitten by? Hacked servers where the whole website is under a phisher's control or malicious website which downloads malware to your machine or sells your data (eg, Google, Facebook).
Maybe my knowledge is lacking, so please tell me what those 4 things are that you're being so elusive about. I suspect they are also as unlikely as MITM.
I'm not trying to protect myself from a targeted attack. I'm trying to protect myself from the enormous amount of scummy behavior in this whole industry. When I connect to my bank, I want my data to be secure not only against malicious activity, but negligence and incompetence. This is the threat model that HTTPS-Everywhere protects against.
Sure, people get bitten by viruses and phishes. But let's fix things one step at a time.
What bank do you use that doesn't use https already? Maybe it's time to change your bank rather than force every website in the world to switch to https.
How do you know? What is your groundless, evidence-free assertion worth to you?
> Nobody cares enough about me to do that.
I have detected Firesheeping on coffee shop networks in the past. Guess somebody cared about all the people in there, huh?
The conflation of Google using information collected about you in aggregate to provide advertising services and man-in-the-middle attacks on clients is dishonest, disingenuous, and at this point downright malicious. Stop.
Usually shitty public WiFi providers injecting ads.