One of the small but important changes that will occur is that many websites that have not implemented HTTPS to secure their communications will be marked in a subtle way as "Not Secure". When such a website presents a web form, typing into the form will change the appearance of the website URL. Here's what it will look like:
Unfortunately, many libraries, and the vendors and publishers that serve them, have not yet implemented HTTPS, so many library users that type into search boxes will start seeing the words "Not Secure" and may be alarmed.
What's going to happen? Here's what I HOPE happens:
- Libraries, Vendors, and Publishers that have been working on switching their websites for the past two years (because usually it's a lot more work than just pushing a button) are motivated to fix the last few problems, turn on their secure connections, and redirect all their web traffic through their secure servers before October 17.
... users will see this:
- Library management and staff will be prepared to answer questions about the few remaining problems that occur. The internet is not a secure place, and Chrome's subtle indicator is just a reminder not to type in sensitive information, like passwords, personal names and identifiers, into "not secure" websites.
- The "Not Secure" animation will be noticed by many users of libraries, vendors, and publishers that haven't devoted resources to securing their websites. The users will file helpful bug reports and the website providers will acknowledge their prior misjudgments and start to work carefully to do what needs to be done to protect their users.
- Libraries, vendors, and publishers will work together to address many interactions and dependencies in their internet systems.
Here's what I FEAR might happen:
- The words "Not Secure" will cause people in charge to think their organizations' websites "have been hacked".
- Publishing executives seeing the "Not Secure" label will order their IT staff to "DO SOMETHING" without the time or resources to do a proper job.
- Library directors will demand that Chrome be replaced by Firefox on all library computers because of a "BUG in CHROME". (creating an even worse problem when Firefox follows suit in a few months!)
- Vendor IT managers will claim that their systems are 100% SECURE because they've "never had a report of data breeches", despite the fact that their systems save passwords in plaintext.
- Library staff will put up signs instructing patrons to "ignore security warnings" on the internet. Patrons will believe them.
So here's my forecast of what WILL happen:
- Many libraries, publishers and vendors, motivated by Chrome 62, will finish their switch-over projects before October 17. Users of library web services will have better security and privacy. (For example, I expect OCLC's WorldCat, shown above in secure and not secure versions, will be in this category.)
- Many switch-over projects will be rushed, and staff throughout the industry, both technical and user-facing, will need to scramble and cooperate to report and fix many minor issues.
- A few not-so-thoughtful voices will complain that this whole security and privacy fuss is overblown, and blame it on an evil Google conspiracy.
Here are some notes to help you prepare:
- I've been asked whether libraries need to update links in their catalog to use the secure version of resource links. Yes, but there's no need to rush. Website providers should be using HTTP redirects to force users into the secure connections, and should use HSTS headers to make sure that their future connections are secure from the start.
- Libraries using proxy servers MUST update their software to reasonably current versions, and update proxy settings to account for secure versions of provider services. In many cases this will require acquisition of a wildcard certificate for the proxy server.
- I've had publishers and vendors complain to me that library customers have asked them to retain the option of insecure connections ... because reasons. Recently, I've seen reports on listservs that vendors are being asked to retain insecure server settings because the library "can't" update their obsolete and insecure proxy software. These libraries should be ashamed of themselves - their negligence is holding back progress for everyone and endangering library users.
- Chrome 62 is expected to reach beta next week. You'll then be able to install it from the beta channel. (Currently, it's in the dev channel.) Even then, you may need to set the #mark-non-secure-as flag to see the new behavior. Once Chrome 62 is stable, you may still be able to disable the feature using this flag.
- A screen capture using chrome 62 now might help convince your manager, your IT department, or a vendor that a website really needs to be switched to HTTPS.
- Mixed content warnings are the result of embedding not-secure images, fonts, or scripts in a secure web page. A malicious actor can insert content or code in these elements, endangering the user. Much of the work in switching a large site from HTTP to HTTPS consists of finding and addressing mixed content issues.
- Google's Emily Schechter gives an excellent presentation on the transition to HTTPS, and how the Chrome UI is gradually changing to more accurately communicate to users that non-HTTPS sites may present risks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoXgl9r0Kjk&feature=youtu.be (discussion of Chrome 62 changes starts around 32:00)
- (added 9/15/2017) As an example of a company that's been working for a while on switching, Elsevier has informed its ScienceDirect customers that ScienceDirect will be switching to HTTPS in October. They have posted instructions for testing proxy configurations.
Or more simply, whatever libraries do, people will continue the trend of searching on Google only rather than using catalogs and specialised search engines, because they trust Google more than a library to provide correct results and a safe experience (and sadly, in many cases they are right).
ReplyDelete