Live data from Hacker News

Viewing profile — andyjh

andyjh

HN member
Joined
Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:07 PM UTC
HN karma
52
Public activity
16 items

About andyjh

No profile information was provided.

Recent public activity

  1. comment
    Comment #27532912

    Licensing issues aside, it would cost _additional_ money to actually serve all that content to a global audience (shipping bytes over the internet isn't free).

  2. comment
    Comment #27253808

    My first thought was that it's more likely something like this than a bad actor on their wifi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hola_%28VPN%29 Anyone with that browser extension insta…

  3. comment
    Comment #26736824

    It would also be useful if you can tell us which IP you're connecting to when you see the error (eg from dev tools).

  4. comment
    Comment #20569767

    One might reasonably assume the "bad guys" they're trying to catch would go elsewhere though, if they have any sense. So then you're just left with innocent people to spy on.

  5. comment
    Comment #19439706

    Milton Keynes has had electric buses since 2014, which top up their batteries via induction chargers at the end of each route throughout the day: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technol…

  6. story
  7. comment
    Comment #17602116

    Chrome isn't forcing anyone, it's just making it clear to users that a non-https site is insecure, which it is. What's the problem with providing information so that users can make…

  8. comment
    Comment #17263203

    Why can't you just sign up via tor?

  9. comment
    Comment #17093823

    Not true: Currently the "info" indicator appears on first interaction (which _could_ be after they've auto-completed everything, but may not be). This is changing though: In Chrome…

  10. comment
    Comment #17093750

    No, as of chrome 68, http will be marked as not secure without waiting for any user interaction at all. The change for http pages outlined in this post is to upgrade that from the …

  11. comment
    Comment #17093713

    Actually the target position is that https _won't_ be marked as "secure", but rather than http will be marked as "not secure". Can't really argue with that.

  12. comment
    Comment #15775171

    It's not really any business of the ISPs which services their customers want to use. If demand for bandwidth increases such that the price isn't viable anymore, charge customers mo…

  13. comment
    Comment #15608629

    I'm personally glad Mozilla take such an interest in ensuring CAs are trustworthy. After all, they are the linchpin for security and authenticity of just about everything on the we…

  14. comment
    Comment #15599612

    No proxy support, so I can't use it in my corporate environment. https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/issues/1632 Also a bit annoying that it can't be run in the backgr…

  15. comment
    Comment #15574482

    You can use client certificates in h2, you just can't do TLS renegotiation. So you have to request a client cert in the initial handshake; you can't ask later (eg for a specific UR…

  16. comment
    Comment #13731748

    "...the leaked information is from any website which was using the service..." Potentially, yes. Not just HTTPS, but those are obviously the more worrying cases. It's not possible …