Used this in junnit tests. A callback to a specific host caused entire platform to hang 5-10 minutes or untill restart of different batch jobs but also dermed like Translations did it too. Turned out specific certificate with strong key would not be picked up by java provider but in stead fell down to our ncipher hardware box and Got stück. Now we Used httpclient but through Socks proxy and timeout does not Work Then. After That Bouncy Castle was put before ncipher as provider and was tested with all those Certs to avoid similar problems.
Bad SSL
61–70 of 93 posts
Re: Bad SSL
#62I'm surprised to see so many negative comments. It's a super straightforward UI, you click on stuff to see how your browser treats that ssl (mis)configuration. This is a great resource, thanks for posting.
The UI is straightforward, true. Very simple. That's not the same as good. The comments here indicate that a great many people simply don't understand what they're looking at. That's bad. A straightforward, simple UI is useless if people don't understand what it's telling them.
I understand what people are saying, and I'm offering a contrary opinion, that I found the site useful as-is and I'm glad it was posted despite the fact that HN's rules on not allowing links to include any extra context are leading to some confusion.
Re: Bad SSL
#63Really don't understand the people downvoting in this thread. Apparently a certain percentage of the population believes that if they don't understand the function of an artifact in the world, the maker of said artifact has failed.
It isn't quite projection; seems like more of some wildly misguided consumer-is-king impulse. Browsing academic libraries must be hell.
Re: Bad SSL
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I am a developer and this is useful to my work so it is targeted exactly at someone like me. It would still help to have a description without going to github. Just some /constructive/ feedback...
Sure, it would help, in that it would have saved you a single click. If you had submitted the link to HN with a descriptive title, then there wouldn't have been any confusion here either. So you're complaining about the site not saying what it does (even though it says so right in the README) while at the same time submitting the link to HN with a title that doesn't say what the link is about. As some /constructive/…
I didn't submit the link
Re: Bad SSL
#65Really don't understand the people downvoting in this thread. Apparently a certain percentage of the population believes that if they don't understand the function of an artifact in the world, the maker of said artifact has failed. It isn't quite projection; seems like more of some wildly misguided consumer-is-king impulse. Browsing academic libraries must be hell.
As someone clearly disagreeing with you, I find it interesting that you mention not understanding "the people downvoting" and then only talk about your impression of the posts that are not downvoted. The downvoted posts seem a lot more needlessly rude to me than the ones they respond to, and I hope I'd see that similarly even if felt different about the issue overall.
The confused top-level comments to me read mostly as expression of said confusion, which to me is completely fair for a place like HN. Of course people want to understand why something could be interesting to them if it is posted & upvoted here.
Re: Bad SSL
#66[deleted]
Re: Bad SSL
#67I have no idea what I'm looking at. Do I need to enter a domain name some place? What domain is this telling me about? I scroll to the bottom of the page, it's telling me what browser and OS I'm on ... ok, maybe this page is showing me how bad my browser is at SSL? Oh, these things are clickable. "This pages contains a lone password field not wrapped in a tag." Um ... yeah? Oh, you're saying that my browser renders t…
Additionally to that my eyes are burning from those colors.
Re: Bad SSL
#68Chrome on iOS fails revoked and pinning tests.
Chrome 56 on iOS 10.2 - fails revoked, mixed-script, and pinning
Re: Bad SSL
#69Really don't understand the people downvoting in this thread. Apparently a certain percentage of the population believes that if they don't understand the function of an artifact in the world, the maker of said artifact has failed. It isn't quite projection; seems like more of some wildly misguided consumer-is-king impulse. Browsing academic libraries must be hell.
If I'm browsing a library, then I have some idea what I'm looking for, what the context is around what I'm seeing.
Here, I'm not looking for anything in particular, just browsing around. I have no idea what this thing is right away, and whoever designed it didn't bother to make it clear. There's a million other things out there that are clear right away, so why should I bother to figure this one out?
Re: Bad SSL
#70I have no idea what I'm looking at. Do I need to enter a domain name some place? What domain is this telling me about? I scroll to the bottom of the page, it's telling me what browser and OS I'm on ... ok, maybe this page is showing me how bad my browser is at SSL? Oh, these things are clickable. "This pages contains a lone password field not wrapped in a tag." Um ... yeah? Oh, you're saying that my browser renders t…
To clarify: this doesn't show what's supported and what's not, that's for you to find out by clicking things. It shows things in green that are generally considered secure. For example, 2048-bit finite-field ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (that's dh2048.badssl.com) is generally still considered secure, but Chrome doesn't allow it, so that's why you get that error even though the website shows it as green. Chrome does so fo…
Thanks, third time I get to this page and just understood it after your explanation. Bad usability ever.