Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Technorati button
Reddit button
Myspace button
Linkedin button
Webonews button
Delicious button
Digg button
Flickr button
Stumbleupon button
Newsvine button

Category: Security

Changing how we install our software

By , February 3, 2018 10:46 am

With the next release of our software (later today) we are changing how we install our software.

The installers stay the same, the software (as you see it) stays the same, but under the hood, things are different. This article describes that change, why we made that change, the consequences of that change, and the work we did to ensure the software keeps functioning.

First, some history.

System32

Once upon a time, software developers routinely placed their DLLs in the Windows system directory, and then when Windows 95 came along, they placed their DLLs in the Windows system32 directory. This eventually resulted in a mess, as far too many DLLs from different software vendors ended up stored in one place.

To solve this Microsoft stated that an application’s DLLs should be stored with the application. Microsoft also made installing their redistributables easier and made various other changes that made “DLL Hell” go away (or manifest in subtly different forms). Over time most software vendors changed how they distributed their software.

Debugging Tools

When we started Software Verify Limited (originally as Software Verification Limited, which no-one could spell!), we noticed that for certain types of problem we needed to investigate, it was quite hard to get the appropriate DLLs to load into the target application unless the DLLs were stored in the system32 directory.

We took the view, rightly or wrongly, that because we were providing tools that do unusual things with applications we could also do non-standard things with how we installed the software. We also added code to the user interface so that each time it started it would copy it’s DLLs to where it thought they needed to be (usually system32, sometimes SysWow64 – the 32 bit system32 on a 64 bit machine).

This behaviour was so ingrained and so core to how the software worked, that even when we spent 3 months rewriting the software many years ago to work nicely in the administrator mode enabled world of Windows Vista/7/8/10, it never occurred to us to change our abuse of the system32 directory.

Anti-Virus

Then one day, a developer researching our tools emailed us saying that he liked our tools but he was constantly fighting his anti-virus tool (BitDefender) that was flagging our tools as viruses because we copied files into the Windows system32 directory. He had disabled this feature but really wanted our software modifying so that we didn’t trigger the Anti-Virus software.

We’d also had reports from other developers that other anti-virus tools had flagged our tools as viruses – which we had assumed was a reference to the fact that our software uses CreateRemoteThread(). The function CreateRemoteThread() can be used for good and for ill. The Toolhelp and PSAPI libraries use this function to query data from running executables. So does Process Explorer from SysInternals (now part of Microsoft). We also use it. So do Bad Guys ™.

These various reports indicated to us that we had a problem, so we started investigating what needed to change to get the many moving parts of our software to work correctly without us touching Windows system32 or Windows sysWow64.

The change to what we install

Things we don’t do any more:

  • We no longer install any Software Verify DLLs or EXEs to system32 or sysWow64.
  • We no longer copy any Software Verify DLLs or EXEs to system32 or sysWow64 when the user interface runs.

So how do the DLLs get found?

One solution to this would be to place the path to the installed tool in the PATH environment variable. We considered this for a short while. But we have a lot of tools and the paths to them will be long if stored in the default location of c:\program files etc. We didn’t like the idea of someone installing C++ Developer Suite x64 / x86 and suddenly being faced with 8 new, very long paths added to their PATH environment variable. We had to come up with a better way.

We decided that we’d update the PATH environment variable to point to the tool in use, at the time the tool being used launched an application, launched a batch file, attached to a running application, or started working with a service. This way, only the application being monitored has it’s PATH updated, and it only has it’s PATH updated with the path to the tool in use, not all tools that have been installed. It’s elegant. It results in path isolation, so incompatible DLLs for one tool can’t affect another tool. And the user’s PATH environment variable doesn’t get polluted with lots of PATHs to our tools.

OK, so that sounds easy to do. Is it? Not exactly. There are quite a few use cases we need to cover. Some are trivial to implement, other quite involved. For all of the cases listed below we need to be able to handle:

  • 32 bit tool working with 32 bit application.
  • 64 bit tool working with 32 bit application.
  • 64 bit tool working with 64 bit application.

We made a grid of everything we needed to test, in every combination of tool (32 bit / 64 bit) and launch/batch/inject/service (32 bit and 64 bit). It came to 140 separate tests cases, each with it’s own test peculiarities, often requiring new and inventive ways to address the problem. When working through the services section we had to reboot a few times as we managed to get the service manager into a rather confused state :-).

Why does the PATH matter so much?

The reason the PATH matters so much is because when you’re injecting a DLL into another process so that you can gather information (flow tracing, code coverage, memory allocations, profiling, thread analysis) the DLL you’re injecting almost certainly has dependencies on other DLLs. If those dependencies can’t be satisfied by being found on the DLL loader search path, the DLL won’t load.

The reason we used to store the DLLs in system32 (or sysWow64) is because it’s an easy (and lazy) way to get the DLL dependencies found.

However, if we can modify the PATH suitably, we can ensure the DLLs can still be found.

Launching native (unmanaged) applications

This is when we start a typical application built using C, C++, Delphi, Visual Basic etc.

We modify the PATH in the tool prior to launching the target application. The target application inherits the environment variables of the parent process (the tool launching it).

Launching .Net (managed) applications

This is when we start a typical application built using C#, Visual Basic .Net etc.

We modify the PATH in the tool prior to launching the target application. The target application inherits the environment variables of the parent process (the tool launching it).

Launching applications from batch files

This is when we start an application from a batch file.

We modify the PATH in the tool prior to launching the target application. The target application inherits the environment variables of the parent process (the tool launching it).

This method will work for most use cases. If only life were that simple…

Launching applications from batch files with no path

This is when we start an application from a batch file but the creator of the batch file has explicitly modified the PATH environment variable, nullifying any changes we made to the PATH environment variable when we launched the command processor that is executing the batch file.

We need to intercept where the command processor starts the process and then modify the PATH in the environment block passed to the target application.

Launching applications from other applications

This is where we monitor the Nth application launched by another application.

We need to intercept where the first application starts the process we wish to monitor and then modify the PATH in the environment block passed to the target application.

Attaching to running applications

This is where we need to inject our DLL (which is in a known location that is not in the PATH) into the address space of a running process that already has the PATH environment variable set, most likely without including a path to where our DLL (and it’s dependencies) is located. The key is the fact that the injected DLL has dependencies. If the dependencies can’t be found, the DLL load will fail.

We had to invent a way to modify the PATH in the already running application before we inject our DLL with all it’s dependencies.

Working with services

This is where we need to get our DLL loaded by the tool’s NT Service API (each Validator has it’s own NT Service API).

This isn’t as straightforward as it seems. The path to the DLL isn’t known (the user could have installed the Validator anywhere). We have to find a way to get the PATH information into the service so that the various NT Service APIs can load the DLL from the correct location. To do this we also updated all the NT Service APIs with additional functions to help debug any NT Service API failures. A separate blog post covers this topic. Services run in quite locked down environments, getting this information into each service was quite an interesting adventure.

Changes to installer and Validators

The way our software tools are written you can normally install one version over the top of a previous version without needing to uninstall the previous version. For this next release, with the new DLL layout, we recommend uninstalling the previous version. However this is not essential as we have added some code to the licence key installer and also to the main Validator user interface, code that will check for the existence of Software Verify DLLs in the Windows system32 directory. If Software Verify DLLs are found in this directory, you will be informed and offered the ability to remove these DLLs.

We recommend removing the DLLs, as we cannot predict the interaction between DLLs left in the system32 directory and the new version of the Validator software. It is possible that for most, if not all, use cases that the software will function correctly. This depends on the way the Windows DLL Loader searches for DLLs and how it loads DLLs. If the system32 directory DLLs are found first then the wrong DLLs will be loaded. This is why we recommend removing them.

“But if I delete the svl*.* files in system32, won’t my older tools stop working?”

Older versions of our software tools will continue to work. Every time you start the GUI for an older tool, it will copy the DLLs it needs back into system32 so that it can function. Then, the next time you start a modern tool, you’ll get a prompt about the svl*.* files and have the option to delete them. With both solutions, the tools keep working. However, if you have an anti-virus tool (for example, BitDefender) installed, that will then delete those files, preventing the tool from working. That’s why the new mechanism is better, the tools work and anti-virus tools are happy.

The above scenario isn’t ideal, but it will allow older and newer tools to work together. If this is a serious issue for some people we may add an “always delete the files” option so that subsequent starts of the newer tools automatically delete the svl*.* files from system32. If you need this functionality, please let us know.

We believe the current versions of our tools are better than the older versions and that upgrading to the current versions will provide a better experience, both in functionality, better user experience, and better documentation. This is the 2nd time in our company history (nearly 16 years) that we’ve chosen to make a non-backwards compatible change with previous behaviour (excluding changes to saved data file formats).

Summary

We’ve changed how we install our software. We no longer do things that might alarm anti-virus tools. As a user of our software, you shouldn’t notice any change in functionality. Everything should continue working as normal.

Share

List of UK stock trading websites that are not secure by default

By , December 19, 2017 12:06 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

I thought it would be interesting to look at each bank in the UK to see if when you visit their company homepage, is that secure by default? That is, is the page loaded by HTTPS? There are more tests than this that you could do, but that’s the baseline. If they can’t meet that then the other tests are meaningless.

Some banks provide the website in both http and https versions. This is bad practice. If someone visits the website as http then the customer should be served the https version of the page.

Also please note, these test results are for a desktop computer visiting the website. A mobile phone may well get a different experience. In other words desktop visitors may get a secure site, but mobile visitors might not. Or vice versa.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Dual The site can be loaded via http, or via https.
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 66 stock trading websites, most of them based in the UK. We found 20 stock trading websites that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 30% of stock trading websites have security vulnerabilities.

Stock Trader Secure Home Page
Alliance Trust Saving Yes https://atonline.alliancetrust.co.uk/atonline/login.jsp
ANZ Yes https://shareinvesting.anz.com/home.aspx
Angel Broking No http://www.angelbroking.com/online-share-trading
Bank of Scotland Yes https://www.bankofscotland.co.uk/
Barclays Yes https://www.smartinvestor.barclays.co.uk/campaign/investment-account.html
Barclays Trading Hub Yes https://www.barclaystradinghub.co.uk/home/what-is-cfd-trading/spread-trading-versus-contracts-for-difference.html
Beaufort Securities Yes https://www.beaufortsecurities.com/online-share-dealing-t-14
Belforfx No http://bonus.belforfx.com
Broker Direct Yes https://www.brokerdirect.co.uk/News/ShareTradingNew.aspx
Charles Schwab No http://www.schwab.co.uk/public/schwab-uk-en/us-investing
Charles Stanley Direct Yes https://www.charles-stanley-direct.co.uk
Citi Yes https://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/equities.do
City Index Yes https://www.cityindex.co.uk/share-trading/
CMC Markets Yes https://www.cmcmarkets.com/en-au/markets-shares
Computershare Yes https://www.computershare.trade/
Degiro Yes https://www.degiro.co.uk/
Digital Look No http://www.digitallook.com
Direct Market Touch Yes https://www.directmarkettouch.com/
Etoro Yes https://www.etoro.com/
Easy Share Trading Yes https://easysharetrading.co.uk/stocks-and-shares-courses/
ETrade Yes https://us.etrade.com/home
ETX Capital Yes https://www.etxcapital.co.uk/equities-trading
Equiniti share view No http://www.shareview.co.uk/4/Info/Portfolio/Default/en/Home/Pages/Home.aspx
Fair Investment Company No http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/uk_share_trading.aspx
Fantasy Stock Exchange No http://www.fantasystockexchange.biz/
FCMB Group Plc No http://fcmbgroup.com/share-trading-policy
First Direct No http://www1.firstdirect.com/1/2/savings-and-investments/sharedealing
Fortrade Yes https://www.fortrade.com/
Free Trade Yes https://freetrade.io/
FxPro Yes https://www.fxpro.co.uk/trading/shares
Get Stocks Yes https://getstocks.com
Halifax Yes https://www.halifax.co.uk/sharedealing/our-accounts/share-dealing-account/Default.asp
Hargreaves Lansdown No http://www.hl.co.uk/investment-services/fund-and-share-account
HSBC Yes https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing
IG Yes https://www.ig.com/uk/shares
Interactive investor No http://www.iii.co.uk/
Internaxx Yes https://www.internaxx.com/
iDealing Yes https://www.idealing.com/en/index
iWeb No http://www.iweb-sharedealing.co.uk/share-dealing-home.asp
Lloyds Bank Yes https://www.lloydsbank.com/share-dealing/share-dealing-account.asp
London Capital Group Yes https://www.lcg.com/uk/
London South East No http://www.lse.co.uk/share-trading/
Natwest Invest Yes https://personal.natwest.com/personal/investments/natwest_invest/natwest-invest.html
Plus 500 Yes https://www.plus500.co.uk/Trading/Stocks
Redmayne Bentley Yes https://www.redmayne.co.uk/stockbroking
Religare broking No http://www.religareonline.com/
RHB Trade Smart Yes https://rhbtradesmart.com/
Saga share direct Yes http://www.sagasharedirect.co.uk/
Saxo Capital Markets Yes https://www.home.saxo/en-gb
Self Trade Yes https://selftrade.co.uk/
Shareprices.com Yes https://shareprices.com/trading/
Share Scope Yes https://www.sharescope.co.uk/
Stock Trade No http://www.stocktrade.co.uk/
Sure Trader Yes https://www.suretrader.com/
SVS XO Yes https://svsxo.com/
The share centre Yes https://www.share.com/share-account/
Westpac Yes https://www.westpac.com.au/personal-banking/investments/share-trading/
UAEXChange No http://www.uaeexchange-etrade.com/
UK Trading View Yes https://uk.tradingview.com/
Virgin Money Yes https://uk.virginmoney.com/virgin/isa/stocks-and-shares/#
Which Way To Pay No http://www.whichwaytopay.com/compare-share-dealing-summary.asp
XM Yes https://www.xm.co.uk/
XO No http://www.x-o.co.uk/
XTB Yes https://www.xtb.com/en
Yorkshire Building Society No http://sharedealing.ybs.co.uk/
You Invest Yes https://www.youinvest.co.uk/dealing-account

Charles Schwab & First Direct

First Direct were the first bank without a bank branch in the UK. That is they’ve always been online only. But their website is not secure by default. It is vulnerable to a man in the middle attack.

Charles Schwab was one of the very first share trading sites aimed at making share trading easy, even for non-experts. As such they’ve been around for a long time. But their website is not secure by default. It is vulnerable to a man in the middle attack.

Just because a business is established, that doesn’t mean you can trust their security.

Fantasy Stock Exchange

Fantasy Stock Exchange is website where children can go to trade pretend stocks and shares. To understand what is happening without any financial risks. It’s an interesting idea. But it’s not secure by default. Anything where children are involved I’d like to think that is secure, we read enough unpleasant stuff about grooming in other environments without their accounts being at risk as well.

Insecure Login

Most of these insecure websites are secure when you try to login, but not secure on the homepage. That makes them vulnerable to a man in the middle attack. However, one stock trading site, Digital Look, is completely insecure, even the login page is not secure, and has a remember me option!


Insecure Browser Extension

Another website was so problematic that we could not visit the website without being forced to install a chrome extension, that was allegedly to improve our security while using their site. The problems with this is are numerous:

  • The extension is downloaded from a non-disclosed location (you can’t see where it’s downloaded from, a website name briefly flashes past that is not destination website).
  • The extension is download from a non-secure location. Thus it could be anything.
  • You can’t verify anything about the extension before installing it in Chrome.
  • Whether you choose to install an extension in order to view a website should be a choice, not mandatory.

We were going to name this company, but when we later tried to reproduce this to get some screenshots of this dangerous chrome extension behaviour could not be repeated. If you see behaviour like this with a website please let us know.

Share

List of UK Insurance companies that are not secure by default

By , December 18, 2017 8:04 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

I thought it would be interesting to look at each bank in the UK to see if when you visit their company homepage, is that secure by default? That is, is the page loaded by HTTPS? There are more tests than this that you could do, but that’s the baseline. If they can’t meet that then the other tests are meaningless.

Some banks provide the website in both http and https versions. This is bad practice. If someone visits the website as http then the customer should be served the https version of the page.

Also please note, these test results are for a desktop computer visiting the website. A mobile phone may well get a different experience. In other words desktop visitors may get a secure site, but mobile visitors might not. Or vice versa.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Dual The site can be loaded via http, or via https.
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 23 insurance companies. We found 7 insurance companies that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 30% of UK insurance companies have security vulnerabilities.

Insurance Company Secure Home Page
AEGON UK Yes https://www.aegon.co.uk/index.html
AXA Yes https://www.axa.co.uk/home.aspx
Allianz SE Yes https://www.allianz.com/en/
Aviva Yes https://www.aviva.co.uk/
Direct Line Insurance Yes https://www.directline.com/
FM Global Yes https://www.fmglobal.com/
Hiscox Yes https://www.hiscox.co.uk/
Legal & General Yes https://www.legalandgeneral.com/insurance/
NFU Mutual Yes https://www.nfumutual.co.uk/
Old Mutual No http://www.oldmutualplc.com/
Phoenix No http://www.phoenixlife.co.uk/
Prudential No http://www.prudential.co.uk/
QBE Insurance Yes https://www.group.qbe.com/
Royal London Asset Management Yes https://www.rlam.co.uk/
Royal London Group Yes https://www.royallondon.com/
RSA Insurance Group Yes https://www.rsagroup.com/
Standard Life Yes https://www.standardlife.com/dotcom/index.page
Southern Rock Insurance No http://www.sricl.com/
XL Group No http://xlgroup.com/
Zurich Insurance Yes https://www.zurich.co.uk/

Share

List of UK pension funds that are not secure by default

By , December 18, 2017 4:01 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

I thought it would be interesting to look at each bank in the UK to see if when you visit their company homepage, is that secure by default? That is, is the page loaded by HTTPS? There are more tests than this that you could do, but that’s the baseline. If they can’t meet that then the other tests are meaningless.

Some banks provide the website in both http and https versions. This is bad practice. If someone visits the website as http then the customer should be served the https version of the page.

Also please note, these test results are for a desktop computer visiting the website. A mobile phone may well get a different experience. In other words desktop visitors may get a secure site, but mobile visitors might not. Or vice versa.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Dual The site can be loaded via http, or via https.
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 28 pension funds. We found 8 pension funds that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 29% of UK pension funds have security vulnerabilities.

Pension Fund Secure Home Page
Aviva Staff Pension Scheme No http://www.avivastaffpensions.co.uk/retired/default.aspx
BAE Systems Pension Scheme Yes https://www.baesystemspensions.com/
Barclays Bank UK Retirement Fund Yes https://epa.towerswatson.com/accounts/barclays/
BBC Pension Trust Ltd No http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/join
BP Pension Fund Yes https://pensionline.bp.com/Homepage
British Airways Pension Scheme Yes https://www.mybapension.com/
British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Yes https://www.bcsss-pension.org.uk/
British Steel Pension Scheme Yes https://www.bspensions.com/
BT Pension Scheme Yes https://www.btpensions.net/
Co-operative Group Pension Scheme (Pace) Yes https://pensions.coop.co.uk/
Electricity Supply Pension Scheme Yes https://megtpensions.com/contact-us/
Greater Manchester Pension Fund Yes https://www.gmpf.org.uk/
HBOS Final Salary Pension Scheme Yes https://www.lloydsbankinggrouppensions.com/
HSBC Bank UK Pension Scheme No http://www.futurefocus.staff.hsbc.co.uk/
ICI Pension Fund No http://www.icipensionfund.org.uk/
Lloyds TSB Group Pension Scheme Yes https://www.lloydsbankinggrouppensions.com/
Mineworkers Pension Scheme Yes https://www.mps-pension.org.uk/
National Grid UK Pension Scheme Yes https://www.nationalgridpensions.com/362/1320/welcome-to-the-national-grid-uk-pension-scheme-website
Railways Pension Scheme Yes https://www.railwayspensions.co.uk/
RBS Group Pension Fund Yes https://rbs.tbs.aon.com/
RBS Group Pensioner’s Association No http://rbsgpa.org.uk/
Rolls-Royce Pension Fund Yes https://www.rolls-roycepensions.com/Homepage
Royal Mail Pension Plan Yes https://www.royalmailpensionplan.co.uk/
Shell Contributory Pension Fund No http://pensions.shell.co.uk/scpf.html
Strathclyde Pension Fund Yes https://www.spfo.org.uk/
Universities Superannuation Scheme Yes https://www.uss.co.uk/
West Midlands Pension Fund No http://www.wmpfonline.com/
West Yorkshire Pension Scheme No http://www.wypf.org.uk/

Commentary

It is surprising to see the pension funds of some banks are insecure, even though the banking website for it’s customers are secure.

While I find it very worrying that some banks and wealth managers etc are not secure, people whose funds are in a pension, that is often their only form of income, thus if access to the pension fund become compromised for a particular person, that could be all their future income being erased. This is not a pleasing prospect. As with banks, wealth managers, etc, these pension funds should manage their security with greater care and diligence.

Share

List of UK healthcare companies that are not secure by default

By , December 15, 2017 3:53 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Dual The site can be loaded via http, or via https.
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 24 healthcare companies. We found 2 healthcare companies that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 8% of UK healthcare companies have security vulnerabilities.

Healthcare company Secure Home Page
Aviva Healthcare Yes https://www.aviva.co.uk/
AXA PPP Yes https://www.axappphealthcare.co.uk/
Benenden Healthcare Society Yes https://www.benenden.co.uk/
Birmingham Hospital Saturday Fund Yes https://www.bhsf.co.uk/
Bupa Yes https://www.bupa.co.uk/
CS Healthcare Yes https://www.cshealthcare.co.uk/
Engage Mutual Assurance Yes https://www.onefamily.com/
Exeter Family Friendly Yes https://www.the-exeter.com/
General & Medical Healthcare Yes https://www.generalandmedical.com/
Health-on-Line Yes https://www.health-on-line.co.uk/
Healthshield Yes https://www.healthshield.co.uk/
HSF Yes https://www.hsf.co.uk
Insurety No http://www.april-uk.com
Medicash Yes https://www.medicash.org
National Friendly Yes https://nationalfriendly.co.uk/
Saga Dual http://www.saga.co.uk
Secure Health Yes https://www.securehealth.co.uk/
Sovereign Health Yes https://www.sovereignhealthcare.co.uk/
Simply Health Yes https://www.simplyhealth.co.uk/
Vitality Yes https://www.vitality.co.uk/
Westfield Yes https://www.westfieldhealth.com/
WHA Yes https://www.whahealthcare.co.uk/
WHCA Yes https://www.orchardhealthcare.co.uk/
WPA Yes https://www.wpa.org.uk/

Commentary

Saga’s website is avialable via http and via https. This should be https only.

Disclaimer

I shouldn’t need to point this out, but i will, all the same, just to be clear.

The data provided on this page should taken at face value. If you’re not sure about something, please verify it yourself. Nothing reported here should be regarded as a criticism or an endorsement or recommendation of an organisations security effectiveness. I am simply passing comment on whether the home page (whatever that may be) is provided as https on not. Other security concerns are a separate matter.

If your organisation is listed here and is not marked as secure, your best course of action is to fix that, not to complain that someone is reporting a fact anyone with a web browser can discover. The security status of your home page is public information, albeit information that many people don’t understand.

Share

List of ecommerce platforms that are not secure by default

By , December 15, 2017 3:33 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Dual The site can be loaded via http, or via https.
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 63 ecommerce companies. We found 9 ecommerce companies that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with
an invalid security certificate). That is 14% of ecommerce companies have security vulnerabilities.

Ecommerce company Secure Home Page
2C2P Yes https://www.2c2p.com/
Adyen Yes https://www.adyen.com/
Alipay Yes https://intl.alipay.com/
Amazon Pay Yes https://pay.amazon.com/uk
Apple Pay Yes https://www.apple.com/uk/apple-pay/
Atos Yes https://atos.net/en-gb/united-kingdom
Authorize.Net Yes https://www.authorize.net/
Bambora Yes https://www.bambora.com/sv/overview/#market-select
BitPay Yes https://bitpay.com/
BPAY Yes https://www.bpay.co.uk/
Braintree Yes https://www.braintreepayments.com/en-gb
CM Telecom Yes https://www.cm.com/
Creditcall Yes https://www.creditcall.com/
CyberSource Yes https://www.cybersource.com/en-EMEA/
DigiCash Yes https://www.digi.cash/
Digital River Yes https://www.digitalriver.com/
Dwolla Yes https://www.dwolla.com/
Elavon Yes https://www.elavon.co.uk/index.html
Euronet Worldwide No http://www.euronetworldwide.com/
eWAY Yes https://eway.io/uk
First Data Yes https://www.firstdata.com/en_gb/home.html
Flooz Yes https://www.flooz.me/
Fortumo Online Yes https://fortumo.com/
GoCardless Yes https://gocardless.com/
Heartland Payment Systems Yes https://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/about-us
Ingenico Yes https://www.ingenico.com/
Klarna Yes https://www.klarna.com/uk/
ModusLink Yes https://www.moduslink.com/
MPay No http://www.mpay.al/en
Neteller Yes https://www.neteller.com/en/
Nochex Yes https://www.nochex.com/gb/
OFX Yes https://www.ofx.com/en-gb/
PagSeguro Yes https://pagseguro.uol.com.br/
PayPal Yes https://www.paypal.com/uk/home
Payoneer Yes https://www.payoneer.com/main/
Paymentwall Yes https://www.paymentwall.com/en/
PayPoint Yes https://www.paypoint.com/en-gb/consumers/store-locator
Paysbuy Yes https://www.paysbuy.com/
Paysafe Group Yes https://www.paysafe.com/
PayStand No http://www.paystand.com/
Payzone Yes https://www.payzone.co.uk/
Qiwi Yes https://qiwi.com/
Realex Payments Yes https://www.realexpayments.com/uk/
Red Dot Payment No http://reddotpayment.com/
Sage Group Yes https://www.sage.com/en-gb/
Skrill Yes https://www.skrill.com/en/
Stripe Yes https://stripe.com/gb
Square Yes https://squareup.com/gb
SWREG Dual http://faq.swreg.org/
Tencent Yes https://www.tencent.com/en-us/
TIMWE No http://www.timwe.com/
TransferWise Yes https://transferwise.com/
True Money No http://www.truemoney.com/
Trustly Online Yes https://trustly.com/en/
Verifone No http://www.verifone.co.uk/
WebMoney Yes https://www.wmtransfer.com/
WeChat Pay Yes https://pay.weixin.qq.com/index.php/public/wechatpay
WePay Yes https://go.wepay.com/
Wirecard Yes https://www.wirecard.com/
Worldpay No http://www.worldpay.com
Xendpay Yes https://www.xendpay.com/
Xsolla Yes https://www.xsolla.com/
Yandex.Money Yes https://money.yandex.ru/

Commentary

I was surprised to see that WorldWay is not secure by default.

I was also surprised to see that SWREG, the oldest of all the ecommerce companies in the world, is also not secure by default. Longevity has no bearings on the operating standards of a business. Interestingly the company that now owns SWREG, Digital River is secure by default.

Disclaimer

I shouldn’t need to point this out, but i will, all the same, just to be clear.

The data provided on this page should taken at face value. If you’re not sure about something, please verify it yourself. Nothing reported here should be regarded as a criticism or an endorsement or recommendation of an organisations security effectiveness. I am simply passing comment on whether the home page (whatever that may be) is provided as https on not. Other security concerns are a separate matter.

If your organisation is listed here and is not marked as secure, your best course of action is to fix that, not to complain that someone is reporting a fact anyone with a web browser can discover. The security status of your home page is public information, albeit information that many people don’t understand.

Share

List of UK online casinos that are not secure by default

By , December 15, 2017 1:30 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is
insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is
insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via
http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 75 online casinos. We found 12 online casinos that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 16% of UK online casinos have security vulnerabilities.

Casino Secure Home Page
21Jackpots No http://21jackpots.com/
32Red Casino Yes https://www.32red.com/
50 Stars Casino No http://www.50starscasino.com/english/eur/download.html
888Casino Yes https://www.888casino.com/
All British Casino Yes https://www.allbritishcasino.com/
All Irish Casino Yes https://www.allirishcasino.com/
BETAT Casino Yes https://betat.co.uk/home/
Betfred Casino No http://www.betfred.com/casino
Betsafe Casino Yes https://www.betsafe.com/en/casino
Betspin Casino Yes https://www.betspin.com/gb
Betway Casino Yes https://casino.betway.com/lobby/en/#/home
Bet-At-Home Casino Yes https://uk.bet-at-home.com/
bgo Vegas Yes https://www.bgo.com/
Cashmio Casino Yes https://www.cashmio.com/en
CasinoLuck Yes https://www.casinoluck.com/
Casino Kings Yes https://www.casinokings.com/
Casino Magix Yes https://www.casinomagix.com/
Casumo Casino Yes https://www.casumo.com/en-gb/
ComeOn Casino Yes https://www.comeon.com/
Carnival Casino No http://www.carnivalcasino.com/
Casino Cruise Yes https://www.casinocruise.com/en-gb
Casino King Yes https://www.casinokings.com/
Casino Plex No http://casinoplex.co.uk/
Casino Share No http://www.luxurycasino.co.uk/en-gb/
Casino Splendido Yes https://www.casinosplendido.com/
Casino.com Yes https://www.casino.com/uk/
Challenge Casino No http://www.luxurycasino.co.uk/en-gb/
Conquer Casino Yes https://www.conquercasino.com/
Cyber Club Casino Yes https://www.cyberclubcasino.com/
Dash Casino Yes https://www.dashcasino.com/
Dr Vegas Casino Yes https://www.drvegas.com/
Dream Palace Casino Yes https://www.dreampalacecasino.com/
EnergyCasino Yes https://energycasino.com/en/
FruityCasa Casino Yes https://www.fruitycasa.com/
Gala Casino Yes https://www.galacasino.com/
GameVillage Yes https://www.gamevillage.com/
Golden Lounge Casino No http://www.goldenlounge.com/
Grosvenor Casino Yes https://www.grosvenorcasinos.com/
Guts Casino Yes https://www.guts.com/gb/page/welcome
Intercasino Yes https://www.intercasino.co.uk/
Jackpot Luck Casino Yes https://www.jackpotluck.com/
Jetbull Casino Yes https://www.jetbull.com/
Karamba Casino Yes https://www.karamba.com/
Ladbrokes Casino No http://casino.ladbrokes.com/en
Magic Box Casino No http://www.magicboxcasino.com/
Mansion Casino Yes https://play.mansioncasino.com/
Maria Casino Yes https://www.mariacasino.co.uk/
mFortune Casino Yes https://www.mfortune.co.uk/
MobileWins Casino Yes https://www.mobilewins.co.uk/
Monte Carlo Casino No http://www.casinomontecarlo.com/
Moon Games Casino Yes https://www.moongames.com/
Mr Green Casino Yes https://www.mrgreen.com/en
Nedplay Casino Yes https://www.nedplay.com/
Noxwin Casino Yes https://www.noxwin.com/#/
Oddsring Casino Yes https://www.oddsring.com/home
Paddy Power Casino No http://casino.paddypower.com/
PokerStars Casino Yes https://www.pokerstarscasino.uk/
Power Slots Yes https://www.powerslots.eu/
Prospect Hall Casino Yes https://prospecthallcasino.com/games/index/
Spinit Casino Yes https://www.spinit.com/en
Redbet Casino Yes https://www.redbet.com/en/casino
Red Queen Casino Yes https://www.redqueencasino.com/
Rizk Casino Yes https://rizk.com/gb
Roxy Palace Casino Yes https://www.roxypalace.com/
Royal Swipe Casino Yes https://www.royalswipe.com/
SCasino Yes https://www.scasino.com/uk/
Sportingbet Casino Yes https://casino.sportingbet.com/en/casino
ShadowBet Casino Yes https://www.shadowbet.com/uk
Slotty Vegas Casino Yes https://slottyvegas.com/en/welcome/
Sporting Index Casino Yes https://casino.sportingindex.com/
Trada Casino Yes https://www.tradacasino.com/
Unibet Casino Yes https://www.unibet.co.uk/casino#filter:uk-unibet-picks-casino-slots-7-420439
Vegas Paradise Casino Yes https://www.vegasparadise.com/
VideoSlots Casino Yes https://www.videoslots.com/
William Hill Casino Yes https://casino.williamhill.com/#!/

Commentary

Reputation

Just as with wealth management, there are some big names in this list, that spend lots of money on advertising, and yet they are not secure. You cannot rely on a trusted brand name to mean that you get a secure website.

Downloading from a non secure site

One site in particular deserves a special mention. 50 Stars Casino. This is not secure, but for you to gamble with them you need to download a software package from their non-secure website and then install the software. I did download it. The download is digitally signed, but given that it’s downloading off a non-secure page, the download could, technically be anything, not necessarily the software the casino wants you to download. This is not good. Not only is the website not secure, but it could potentially attack your computer if the download is compromised.

Disclaimer

I shouldn’t need to point this out, but i will, all the same, just to be clear.

The data provided on this page should taken at face value. If you’re not sure about something, please verify it yourself. Nothing reported here should be regarded as a criticism or an endorsement or recommendation of an organisations security effectiveness. I am simply passing comment on whether the home page (whatever that may be) is provided as https on not. Other security concerns are a separate matter.

If your organisation is listed here and is not marked as secure, your best course of action is to fix that, not to complain that someone is reporting a fact anyone with a web browser can discover. The security status of your home page is public information, albeit information that many people don’t understand.

Share

List of UK currency exchanges that are not secure by default

By , December 15, 2017 12:42 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with

data on another type of institution.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is
insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is
insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via
http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 67 currency exchanges. We found 11 currency exchanges that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 16% of UK currency exchanges have security vulnerabilities

Currency Exchange Secure Home Page
#1 Currency Yes https://www.no1currency.com/
Ace-FX Yes https://www.ace-fx.com/
American Express Yes https://www.americanexpress.com/uk/content/foreign-exchange/foreign-exchange-services.html
Asda Travel Money Yes https://money.asda.com/travel-money/
Barclays Bureau de change Yes https://www.barclays.co.uk/travel/foreign-currency-exchange/
Barrhead Travel Yes https://www.barrheadtravel.co.uk/foreign-exchange
Best Exchange No http://www.bestexchange.co.uk/
Best Foreign Exchange Yes https://www.bestforeignexchange.com/
BFC Exchange Yes https://www.bfcexchange.co.uk/
Central FX No http://www.centralfx.co.uk/
City Forex Yes https://www.cityforex.co.uk/
Change Group Yes https://www.changegroup.co.uk/
Compare Holiday Money Yes https://www.compareholidaymoney.com/
Covent Garden FX Yes https://www.coventgardenfx.com/
Currencies for you Yes https://www.currencies4you.com/
Currency converter Yes https://www.currencyconverter.co.uk/
Currency matters Yes http://www.currencymatters.co.uk/
Currency solutions Yes https://www.currencysolutions.co.uk/
Currency UK Yes https://www.currencyuk.co.uk/
Euro Change Yes https://www.eurochange.co.uk/
Danske Bank Yes https://danskebank.co.uk/personal/help/currency-converter/currency-converter
Debenhams No http://finance.debenhams.com/travel-money/
Elavon Yes https://www.elavon.co.uk/dcc.html
Exchange Rates Yes https://www.exchangerates.org.uk/
First Choice Yes https://www.firstchoice.co.uk/holiday/info/foreign-exchange
First Rate Yes https://www.firstrate.co.uk/
Fourex No http://www.fourex.co.uk/
Global Exchange Yes https://www.globalexchange.co.uk/
GCEN Yes https://gcen.co.uk/
Money Yes https://www.money.co.uk/travel-money.htm
H & T Group Yes https://www.handt.co.uk/travel-money
Halifax Travel Money Yes https://www.halifax.co.uk/travel/travel-money/
Hargreaves Lansdowne No http://www.hl.co.uk/investment-services/currency-service/latest-currency-report/currency-converter-exchange-rates
HiFX Yes https://www.hifx.co.uk
HSBC Expat Yes https://www.expat.hsbc.com/1/2/hsbc-expat/foreign-exchange-currency
HSBC Travel Money Yes https://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/travel-money
ICICI Bank No http://www.icicibank.co.uk/personal/travel-money.page
Internation Currency Exchange Yes https://www.iceplc.com/
Kanoo Foreign Exchange Yes http://www.kanoocurrency.co.uk/
KBR Foreign Exchange Yes https://www.kbrfx.com/
M & S Currency Exchange Yes https://bank.marksandspencer.com/travel/travel-money/currency-exchange-rates/
Money Corp Yes https://www.moneycorp.com/uk/
Money Saving Expert Yes https://travelmoney.moneysavingexpert.com/
Natwest International No http://www.natwestinternational.com/nw/personal-banking/travel-and-international/g48/travel-money/currency-converter.ashx
Northwest Money Exchange No http://www.northwestmoneyexchange.com/
Post Office Money Yes https://www.postoffice.co.uk/foreign-currency
RBS Yes https://www.rbs.co.uk/personal/travel/g1/money/exchange-rates.ashx
Reuters Yes https://uk.reuters.com/business/currencies
Ruislip Currency No http://www.ruislipcurrency.co.uk/
Saga Travel Money Yes https://www.saga.co.uk/insurance/travel-money.aspx
Sainsbury’s Bank Travel Money Yes https://www.sainsburysbank.co.uk/travel/ins_travelmoney_tmo_skip
Santander Travel Money Yes https://www.santander.co.uk/uk/current-accounts/ordering-travel-money
Senil Cash & Go Yes https://www.senli.co.uk/
Smart Currency Business Yes https://www.smartcurrencybusiness.com/
Smart Currency Exchange Yes https://www.smartcurrencyexchange.com/
Sterling Yes https://www.sterlingfx.co.uk/
Tesco Travel Money No http://www.tescobank.com/travel-money/
The Currency Club Yes https://www.thecurrencyclub.co.uk/
The Money Shop Yes https://www.themoneyshop.com/travel-money/
Thomas Cook Yes https://www.thomascook.com/travel-money/foreign-currency/
Thomas Money Exchange Yes https://www.thomasexchangeglobal.co.uk/
TorFX Yes https://www.torfx.com/
Travelex Yes https://www.travelex.co.uk/
WeSwap Yes https://www.weswap.com/en/
World First Yes https://www.worldfirst.com/uk/foreign-exchange/
UAE Exchange Yes https://www.uaeexchange.com/gbr/
XE No http://www.xe.com/

Disclaimer

I shouldn’t need to point this out, but i will, all the same, just to be clear.

The data provided on this page should taken at face value. If you’re not sure about something, please verify it yourself. Nothing reported here should be regarded as a criticism or an endorsement or recommendation of an organisations security effectiveness. I am simply passing comment on whether the home page (whatever that may be) is provided as https on not. Other security concerns are a separate matter.

If your organisation is listed here and is not marked as secure, your best course of action is to fix that, not to complain that someone is reporting a fact anyone with a web browser can discover. The security status of your home page is public information, albeit information that many people don’t understand.

Share

List of UK Wealth Management companies that are not secure by default

By , December 15, 2017 12:16 pm

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

This is an updated version of an earlier post. We have added 15 companies since the first version.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 68 wealth management companies. We found 18 wealth management companies that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 27% of UK wealth management companies have security vulnerabilities

Wealth Management Company Secure Home Page
Aberdeen Asset Management No http://www.aberdeen-asset.co.uk/
Aberdeen Asset Management Trust Centre No http://www.invtrusts.co.uk/investmenttrusts/
Allianz Global Investors Yes https://uk.allianzgi.com/role-gate-page
Artemis Investment Management LLP Yes https://www.artemisfunds.com/
Baillie Gifford Yes https://www.bailliegifford.com/
Barclays Wealth Yes https://www.barclays.co.uk/wealth-management/
Blackrock Yes https://www.blackrock.com
Brewin Dolphin Yes https://www.brewin.co.uk/
Cantab Asset Management Yes https://www.cantabam.com/
Capital Yes https://www.capital.co.uk/
Capital International Yes https://www.capital-iom.com/
CBRE Global Investors No http://www.cbreglobalinvestors.com/Pages/default.aspx
CCLA Yes https://www.ccla.co.uk/
Charles Stanley Yes https://www.charles-stanley.co.uk/
Citi Yes https://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/wealth-management-products.do
City Asset Management Plc No http://www.city-asset.co.uk/
Clifton asset management Yes https://www.clifton-asset.co.uk/
Close Brothers Asset Management Yes https://www.closebrothersam.com/
EFG Yes https://www.efgam.com/home/Landing-Asset-Management.html
Equester Capital Management Yes https://www.neptunefunds.com
Fidelity Worldwide Investment Yes https://www.fidelity.co.uk/home
Franklin Templeton No http://www.franklintempleton.co.uk/
GAM Yes https://www.gam.com/
Hargreaves Lansdowne No http://www.hl.co.uk/
Hawksmoor investment management No http://www.hawksmoorim.co.uk/
Heartwood investment management No http://www.heartwoodgroup.co.uk/
Henderson Global Investors Yes https://www.janushenderson.com/ukpi
Hermes Investment Management Yes https://www.hermes-investment.com/ukw/
Interactive Investor No http://www.iii.co.uk/funds
Investec Bank Yes https://www.investec.com/en_gb.html
Invesco Perpetual Yes https://www.invescoperpetual.co.uk/uk
Kleinwort Hambros Yes https://www.kleinworthambros.com/en/
Lion Trust No http://www.liontrust.co.uk/
London and Capital Yes https://www.londonandcapital.com/
M&G Securities Ltd No http://www.mandg.co.uk/
Majedie No http://www.majedie.com/
Mattioli Woods Yes https://www.mattioliwoods.com/
Mayfair Capital Yes https://www.mayfaircapital.co.uk/
Money Farm Yes https://www.moneyfarm.com/uk/
Montanaro Yes http://www.montanaro.co.uk/
Morning Star No http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/
MunnyPot Yes https://www.munnypot.com/
Newton Investment Management Yes https://www.newtonim.com/
Nova Financial Yes https://www.novia-financial.co.uk/
Nutmeg Yes https://www.nutmeg.com/
Old Mutual Wealth Yes https://www.oldmutualwealth.co.uk/
Prospect Wealth Management Yes https://prospectwealth.co.uk/
Psigma investment maangement No http://www.psigma.com/pages/psigma-investment-management-landing.aspx
Quilter Cheviot Yes https://www.quiltercheviot.com/uk/private-client/
Rathbones Yes https://www.rathbones.com/
Sanlam Life and Pensions UK Limited Yes https://www.sanlam.co.uk/home.aspx
Saranac Partners Yes https://www.saranacpartners.com/
Scalable Capital Yes https://uk.scalable.capital/
St. Jame’s Place Yes https://www.sjp.co.uk/
Standard Life Investments Yes https://www.standardlifeinvestments.com/
State Street Global Advisors Yes https://www.ssga.com/home.html
Schroders No http://www.schroders.com
SVM Asset Management No http://www.svmonline.co.uk/
Swanest Yes https://swanest.com/
T Rowe Price Yes https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/home.html
TAM Yes https://www.tamassetmanagement.com/
Threadneedle Asset Management Yes https://www.mythreadneedle.com/
Tilney Group Yes https://www.tilney.co.uk/
Troy Asset Management No http://www.taml.co.uk/
UBS Global Asset Management Yes https://www.ubs.com/global/en/asset-management.html
Unicorn Asset Management Yes https://www.unicornam.com/
Vanguard Asset Management Yes https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/
Wealth Horizon No http://www.wealthhorizon.com/

Commentary

It is interesting that you cannot trust a name or a brand to be secure. For example, Aberdeen Asset Management is probably the one name that is most known in the UK. They are regularly featured on the early morning BBC Radio 4 Today Programme to provide their expert opinion. Unfortunately, their website is not secure.

A number of these companies have names that sound old and established, or strong and reliable. They are names, just that. The reliability is in their behaviour. A key part in that is “are they secure”?

Disclaimer

I shouldn’t need to point this out, but i will, all the same, just to be clear.

The data provided on this page should taken at face value. If you’re not sure about something, please verify it yourself. Nothing reported here should be regarded as a criticism or an endorsement or recommendation of an organisations security effectiveness. I am simply passing comment on whether the home page (whatever that may be) is provided as https on not. Other security concerns are a separate matter.

If your organisation is listed here and is not marked as secure, your best course of action is to fix that, not to complain that someone is reporting a fact anyone with a web browser can discover. The security status of your home page is public information, albeit information that many people don’t understand.

Share

List of UK Building Societies that are secure by default

By , December 15, 2017 11:42 am

This is one of several posts of the topic of security of websites. Inspired by my initial post on the security of UK banks.

The reason for splitting this data into multiple posts is to make it more manageable. So that data on one institution is not mixed with data on another type of institution.

The following key is used for the secure status:

Yes The site is secure, loaded via https
Invalid The site loads via https, but the security certificate is invalid and thus the site is insecure.
Partial The site loads via https, but loads some parts of the page without https. The site is insecure.
No The site is loaded via http, not via https.
Fixed The site is loaded via https, but at the time of first writing it was loaded via http.
?? We could not find a website to evaluate.

We tested 45 building societies. We found 16 building societies that did not have a secure home page (not https or did have https with an invalid security certificate). That is 36% of UK building societies have security vulnerabilities.

Building Society Secure Home Page
Bath Investment & Building Society Yes https://www.bathbuildingsociety.co.uk/
Beverly Building Society No http://beverleybs.co.uk/
Britannia Savings No http://britannia.co.uk/
Buckinghamshire Building Society No http://www.bucksbs.co.uk/
Cambridge Building Society Yes https://www.cambridgebs.co.uk/
Chorley & District Building Society No http://www.chorleybs.co.uk/
Coventry Building Society Yes https://www.coventrybuildingsociety.co.uk/
Cumberland Building Society Yes https://www.cumberland.co.uk/
Darlington Building Society Yes https://www.darlington.co.uk/
Dudley Building Society Yes https://www.dudleybuildingsociety.co.uk/
Earl Shilton Building Society No http://www.esbs.co.uk/
Ecology Building Society Yes https://www.ecology.co.uk/
Furness Building Society Yes https://www.furnessbs.co.uk/
Hanley Economic Building Society Yes http://www.thehanley.co.uk/
Harpenden Building Society Yes https://www.harpendenbs.co.uk/
Hinckley & Rugby Building Society Yes https://www.hrbs.co.uk/
Holmesdale Building Society Yes https://www.theholmesdale.co.uk/
Ipswich Building Society Yes https://www.ibs.co.uk/
Leeds Building Society No http://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/
Leek United Building Society Yes https://www.leekunited.co.uk/
Loughborough Buildiong Society Yes https://www.theloughborough.co.uk/
Manchester Building Society Yes https://www.themanchester.co.uk/
Mansfield Building Society Yes https://mansfieldbs.co.uk/
Market Harborough Building Society No http://www.mhbs.co.uk/
Marsden Building Society Yes https://www.themarsden.co.uk/
Melton Mowbray Building Society Yes https://www.themelton.co.uk/
Monmouthshire Building Society Yes http://www.monbs.com/
National Counties Building Society No http://www.ncbs.co.uk/
Newbury Building Society Yes https://www.newbury.co.uk/
Newcastle Building Society Yes https://www.newcastle.co.uk/
Norwich & Peterborough Building Society Yes https://www.nandp.co.uk/
Nottingham Building Society Yes https://www.thenottingham.com/
Penrith Building Society Yes https://www.penrithbuildingsociety.co.uk/
Principality Building Society No http://www.principality.co.uk/
Progressive Building Society No http://theprogressive.com/
Scottish Building Society Yes https://www.scottishbs.co.uk/
Saffron Building Society Yes https://www.saffronbs.co.uk/
Skipton Building Society No http://www.skipton.co.uk/
Stafford Railway Building Society Yes https://srbs.co.uk/
Swansea Building Society No http://www.swansea-bs.co.uk/
Teachers Building Society Yes https://www.teachersbs.co.uk/
Tipton & Coseley Building Society Yes https://www.thetipton.co.uk/
West Bromwich Building Society No http://www.westbrom.co.uk/
Yorkshire Building Society Yes https://www.ybs.co.uk/index.html

Disclaimer

I shouldn’t need to point this out, but i will, all the same, just to be clear.

The data provided on this page should taken at face value. If you’re not sure about something, please verify it yourself. Nothing reported here should be regarded as a criticism or an endorsement or recommendation of an organisations security effectiveness. I am simply passing comment on whether the home page (whatever that may be) is provided as https on not. Other security concerns are a separate matter.

If your organisation is listed here and is not marked as secure, your best course of action is to fix that, not to complain that someone is reporting a fact anyone with a web browser can discover. The security status of your home page is public information, albeit information that many people don’t understand.

Share

Panorama Theme by Themocracy