31–40 of 268 posts
What defines private sites, I wonder – beyond "such as local IP addresses like 192.168.0.1, single-label hostnames, and shortlinks like intranet/"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tendency of Linux users to have local resources that lack TLS? phpmyadmin, netdata, duckdb ui, git-webui, whatever.
Silly question and one I should probably already know the answer to but never really got around to thinking through: are there practical concerns for not doing TLS in your home intranet? It means that if someone has patched into your local network they can access anything in there, but they have to get in first, right? So how concerned should one be in these scenarios (a) one has wifi with WPA2 enabled (b) there's a…
Public CAs don't issue (free) certificates for internal hostnames and running your own CA has the drawback that Android doesn't allow you to "properly" use a personal CA without root, splitting it's CA list between the automatically trusted system CA list and the per-application opt-in user CA list. (It ought to be noted that Apple's personal CA installation method uses MDM, which is treated like a system CA list). There's also random/weird one-offs like how Firefox doesn't respect the system certificate store, so you need to import your CA certificate separately in Firefox.
The only real option without running into all those problems is to get a regular (sub)domain name and issue certificates for that, but that usually isn't free or easy. Not to mention that if you do the SSL flow "properly", you need to issue one certificate for each device, which leaks your entire intranet to the certificate transparency log (this is the problem with Tailscale's MagicDNS as a solution). Alternatively you need to issue a wildcard certificate for your domains, but that means that every device in your intranet can have a valid SSL certificate for any other domain name on your certificate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run my blog in unencrypted HTTP/1.1 just to make a point that we do not have to depend on third parties to publish content online. And I noticed that Whatsapp is even worse than Chrome, it opens HTTPS even if I share HTTP links.
Depend on one less third party, you still depend on the DNS Root servers, your ISP / hosting, domain registry, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run my blog in unencrypted HTTP/1.1 just to make a point that we do not have to depend on third parties to publish content online. And I noticed that Whatsapp is even worse than Chrome, it opens HTTPS even if I share HTTP links.
Depend on one less third party, you still depend on the DNS Root servers, your ISP / hosting, domain registry, etc.
I know about acme.sh, but still...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depend on one less third party, you still depend on the DNS Root servers, your ISP / hosting, domain registry, etc.
Host an onion website at home using solar energy, and the only third party your website will depend on is your internet provider :)
Good stuff. Anyone have a good recipe for setting up an HTTPS for one-off experiments in localhost? I generally don't because there isn't much of a compromise story there, but it's always been a security weakness in how I do tests and if Chrome is going to start reminding me stridently I should probably bother to fix it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that mean that technically, any node in the network between you and your reader can mutate the contents of the blog in-transit without anyone being the wiser (up to and including arbitrary JavaScript inline injection)? Probably a low-threat security risk for a blog.
I'd be happy if EU outlawed this instead of outlawing encryption. But indeed, the ability to publish on my own outweights the risk of someone modding my content. Most of us here read their news from work laptops, where the employer and their MiTM supplier are a much bigger threat even for HTTPS websites.
Their client will complain loudly until and unless they install it, but then for those who care you could offer the best of both worlds.
Almost certainly more trouble than it's worth. G'ah, and me without any free time to pursue a weekend hobby project!
I distinctly remember trying to sign up for Pandora’s premium plan back in 2012 and their credit card form being served and processed over HTTP. I emailed them telling them that I wanted to give them my money if they would just fix the form. They never got back to me or fix it for several more years while I gave my money to Spotify. Back then HTTPS was NOT the norm and it was a battle to switch people to it. Yes it i…
Good stuff. Anyone have a good recipe for setting up an HTTPS for one-off experiments in localhost? I generally don't because there isn't much of a compromise story there, but it's always been a security weakness in how I do tests and if Chrome is going to start reminding me stridently I should probably bother to fix it.
Chrome treats localhost as a secure origin (regardless of HTTPS) by default - don't overthink it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run my blog in unencrypted HTTP/1.1 just to make a point that we do not have to depend on third parties to publish content online. And I noticed that Whatsapp is even worse than Chrome, it opens HTTPS even if I share HTTP links.
There are dozens of us I guess that care about this kind of thing. I have never really understood the obsession with https for static content that I don't care if anyone can see I am reading like a blog post. HTTPS should be for things that matter, everything else can, and think should use HTTP when it is not necessary. Depending on yet another third party to provide what is IMHO a luxury should not be required, and…
My navigation habits are boring but they are mine, not anyone else's to see.
A server has no way to know whether the user cares or not, so they are not in a position to choose the user's privacy preferences.
Also: a page might be fully static, but I wouldn't want $GOVERNMENT or $ISP or $UNIVERSITY_IT_DEPARTMENT to inject propaganda, censor... Just because it's safe for you doesn't mean it's safe for everyone.