this must be really useful when developing your own browser
[deleted]
Bad SSL
11–20 of 93 posts
Re: Bad SSL
#12If this is meant for general technical consumption, it's sorely lacking in usability. After several seconds, I guessed that it might be referring to something about my browser.
Some of the colours seem to indicate badness. Clicking on things provides no additional information, but then makes me wonder if it's meant to be an example of a bad webpage and there's nothing wrong with my browser.
Another failure of minimalism.
Re: Bad SSL
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm actually more of a fan of https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html - it gives you a whole lot more information (although does take longer).
Both of those sites are for checking remote servers. BadSSL is for checking what your client browser behavior is.
But SSLLabs does have a client test, it's even linked to from the BadSSL dashboard page.
Re: Bad SSL
#14A FREE SEO PLATFORM FOR WEBSITES AND YOUTUBE
RANK YOUR WEBSITE AND YOUTUBE VIDEOS FREE
FREE SEO TOOLS
[Article Rewriter](http://www.smallseokit.com/article-rewriter)
[Plagiarism Checker](http://www.smallseokit.com/plagiarism-checker)
[Backlink Maker](http://www.smallseokit.com/backlink-maker)
[Meta Tag Generator](http://www.smallseokit.com/meta-tag-generator)
[Keyword Position Checker](http://www.smallseokit.com/keyword-position-checker)
[Domain Age Checker](http://www.smallseokit.com/domain-age-checker)
[Meta Tags Analyzer](http://www.smallseokit.com/meta-tags-analyzer)
[Robots.txt Generator](http://www.smallseokit.com/robots-txt-generator)
[XML Sitemap Generator](http://www.smallseokit.com/xml-sitemap-generator)
[Alexa Rank Checker](http://www.smallseokit.com/alexa-rank-checker)
[My IP Address](http://www.smallseokit.com/my-ip-address)
AND 50+ MORE TOOLS SUITABLE FOR YOUTUBE VIDEOS RANK AND ALSO FOR SEO PURPOSE!
ALL SEO TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE FOR FREE TEST THEM AND FEED BACK
Re: Bad SSL
#15Re: Bad SSL
#16If this is meant for general technical consumption, it's sorely lacking in usability. After several seconds, I guessed that it might be referring to something about my browser. Some of the colours seem to indicate badness. Clicking on things provides no additional information, but then makes me wonder if it's meant to be an example of a bad webpage and there's nothing wrong with my browser. Another failure of minimal…
This site isn't meant for general technical consumption. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. Why does this page have to explain what all the different cyber suites are, how SSL handshaking works, or why some hashes are no longer considered secure for cryptographic purposes? There are plenty of other websites out there that provide SSL primers. This website doesn't need to do that.
This isn't a failure of minimalism, it's a pretty cool page for people who are curious about the different SSL weaknesses that have been discovered over the years.
Re: Bad SSL
#17If this is meant for general technical consumption, it's sorely lacking in usability. After several seconds, I guessed that it might be referring to something about my browser. Some of the colours seem to indicate badness. Clicking on things provides no additional information, but then makes me wonder if it's meant to be an example of a bad webpage and there's nothing wrong with my browser. Another failure of minimal…
I agree, i have no idea what this is, or what it is trying to tell me...
Re: Bad SSL
#18If this is meant for general technical consumption, it's sorely lacking in usability. After several seconds, I guessed that it might be referring to something about my browser. Some of the colours seem to indicate badness. Clicking on things provides no additional information, but then makes me wonder if it's meant to be an example of a bad webpage and there's nothing wrong with my browser. Another failure of minimal…
This site isn't meant for general technical consumption. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. Why does this page have to explain what all the different cyber suites are, how SSL handshaking works, or why some hashes are no longer considered secure for cryptographic purposes? There are plenty of other websites out there that provide SSL primers. This website doesn't need to do that. This isn't a failure o…
He might think otherwise because it climbed to the top of HN but doesn't have any explanation (here or on the actual page) of what it does or who/what it might be useful for.
Re: Bad SSL
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of those sites are for checking remote servers. BadSSL is for checking what your client browser behavior is.
But SSLLabs does have a client test, it's even linked to from the BadSSL dashboard page. https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html
It took me going to this page to understand what was going on, I assumed it was a web server test. The report was more pratical too, telling me what I'm protected against, not just a bunch of yes/no things that I have to go reference. I'm on a phone in portrait mode though so maybe it is just a formatting thing.
Re: Bad SSL
#20If this is meant for general technical consumption, it's sorely lacking in usability. After several seconds, I guessed that it might be referring to something about my browser. Some of the colours seem to indicate badness. Clicking on things provides no additional information, but then makes me wonder if it's meant to be an example of a bad webpage and there's nothing wrong with my browser. Another failure of minimal…
This site isn't meant for general technical consumption. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. Why does this page have to explain what all the different cyber suites are, how SSL handshaking works, or why some hashes are no longer considered secure for cryptographic purposes? There are plenty of other websites out there that provide SSL primers. This website doesn't need to do that. This isn't a failure o…
It should at LEAST say it is targeting the browser for the tests, not someone's ssl site. I had no idea it was testing my phone until I went to the other test site link in the footer. I can't believe you go to such length defending the "UX" when it isn't even obvious what the test is for. Seriously.