Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NeverSSL

neverssl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 212 posts

Re: NeverSSL

#161

Post by akvadrako »

sangnoir wrote: post #152
xenadu02 wrote: post #141

The worst code I ever had to write was captive portal detection for the PlanGrid app. I discovered there is a whole host of sysadmins out there attempting to actively subvert the iOS capitve portal detection. They try to figure out the domains used and whitelist them so iOS will think it is connected to a good network, but they redirect everything else which horribly breaks SSL connections. The whole thing is an arms…

Android detects wifi with captive portals automatically and pops-up a notification that says "Wifi network requires sign-in". Clicking on that takes you to non-HTTPS page in a browser that is intended to be intercepted. There is no reason why Apple can't add captive portal detection at OS level like Android does.

Apple already has captive portal detection, but it doesn't redirect to a whole browser - it just displays a mini browser with a Safari WebView.

Re: NeverSSL

#162

Post by asherkin »

sangnoir wrote: post #152
xenadu02 wrote: post #141

The worst code I ever had to write was captive portal detection for the PlanGrid app. I discovered there is a whole host of sysadmins out there attempting to actively subvert the iOS capitve portal detection. They try to figure out the domains used and whitelist them so iOS will think it is connected to a good network, but they redirect everything else which horribly breaks SSL connections. The whole thing is an arms…

Android detects wifi with captive portals automatically and pops-up a notification that says "Wifi network requires sign-in". Clicking on that takes you to non-HTTPS page in a browser that is intended to be intercepted. There is no reason why Apple can't add captive portal detection at OS level like Android does.

As the OP said, that is already in iOS - it is just that more and more captive portals are whitelisting the domains it hits to check for a captive portal.

Re: NeverSSL

#164

Post by WildUtah »

gumby wrote: post #111
droopybuns wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you see this scaling? Do you think hotels and restaurants can deliver reliable internet without charging for it? Is it reasonable to assume that companies that don't charge for wifi can afford the staff to make sure that users don't abuse it? I am considering your proposal & I don't see it working at all.

I see it scaling the same way hannob's example does, with water. Who charges for a drink of water?

Most restaurants in most countries charge extra for a glass of plain water. The USA impresses foreigners with its free universal iced water.

Re: NeverSSL

#165

Post by isostatic »

snug wrote: post #108
Turing_Machine wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Versus say London where a $300 hotel charges $25 for WiFi." It's almost an inverse relationship, in my experience. The economy to medium-priced "business travel" hotels (the sort found near most U.S. airports) usually have free wifi, while the fancy "luxury" hotels often charge for it.

Because it's usually people that can afford it, or a business trip, where the company will pay for it.

My company will pay for it, but it's a hassle to pay for it, submit the receipt, etc.

I simply choose better hotels.

Re: NeverSSL

#166

Post by raverbashing »

sangnoir wrote: post #152
xenadu02 wrote: post #141

The worst code I ever had to write was captive portal detection for the PlanGrid app. I discovered there is a whole host of sysadmins out there attempting to actively subvert the iOS capitve portal detection. They try to figure out the domains used and whitelist them so iOS will think it is connected to a good network, but they redirect everything else which horribly breaks SSL connections. The whole thing is an arms…

Android detects wifi with captive portals automatically and pops-up a notification that says "Wifi network requires sign-in". Clicking on that takes you to non-HTTPS page in a browser that is intended to be intercepted. There is no reason why Apple can't add captive portal detection at OS level like Android does.

Yes, Android 6.0 will be extremely annoying when trying to get you to click the captive portal.

Re: NeverSSL

#167

Post by raverbashing »

pmontra wrote: post #159
arjie wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want your shitty slow internet. I want to pay $20 for fast enough Internet on a plane, not some 56.6kbps bullshit.

$20 is one month worth of broadband in some countries. Anybody can do what he wants with his money, but $2 would be a more appropriate price tag for a few hours of Internet. If you're working, $20 could be OK though because you're gaining more.

On a plane?

> but $2 would be a more appropriate price tag for a few hours of Internet

Correct. That's (one of the reasons) why Starbucks coffee is pricier.

Re: NeverSSL

#168

Post by atomwaffel »

pmontra wrote: post #159
arjie wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want your shitty slow internet. I want to pay $20 for fast enough Internet on a plane, not some 56.6kbps bullshit.

$20 is one month worth of broadband in some countries. Anybody can do what he wants with his money, but $2 would be a more appropriate price tag for a few hours of Internet. If you're working, $20 could be OK though because you're gaining more.

It also depends on where you are. Getting high-speed, low-latency internet to a shopping centre in the middle of a metropolitan area is probably a bit easier and cheaper than getting it to a plane flying 40000 feet above the Atlantic. And while I probably wouldn't pay $20 for eight hours of internet on a plane (unless I really needed it), I don't find the price tag entirely unjustified.

Re: NeverSSL

#170

Post by richrichardsson »

kristofferR wrote: post #155
innocenat wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple could also makes the mini-browser supports those captive portal instead? Then none of this bypassing would be required.

The mini-browser (Captive Network Assistant) is designed to protect the user's privacy, so support for Javascript and cookies is deliberately disabled.

Javascript IS enabled in CNA!
Post reply on HN