11–20 of 27 posts
It says "Anonymous and secure", but I don't see HTTPS in the URL. When I prefix https:// Firefox complains about untrusted certificate. Am I missing something?
Are you going to update the domain name to keep up with Internet growth? That might be expensive...
Well it definitely provided some mental projections into how wonderful would it be to have more people around me that are interested in achieving the same things. Filling out those forms felt nice and regardless of the results, I feel strangely satisfied.
There must be something to the idea, even if this isn't an ideal implementation.
It says "Anonymous and secure", but I don't see HTTPS in the URL. When I prefix https:// Firefox complains about untrusted certificate. Am I missing something?
Sorry about that! I think the "Secure" copy is a bit misleading. We'll take that down. What we meant to communicate with "Anonymous and Secure" is, "Feel free to be completely honest because we won't show this information to anyone else, and we won't even ask for your name or identity!" It was a weekend project finished on little sleep. Sorry abou the "secure" bit.
Edit: seems to be there now (approx. 20 minutes later). Maybe there was some change in the ranking algorithm recently? I don't believe I saw it acting like this before.
It says "Anonymous and secure", but I don't see HTTPS in the URL. When I prefix https:// Firefox complains about untrusted certificate. Am I missing something?
The certificate being "untrusted" doesn't mean anything about security. It just mean that they have signed it themselves and that no central authorities that you are supposed to trust for whatever reasons has signed it for them. All you want here is an encrypted communication, and you get that with the self-signed certificate as well.
Security!
It says "Anonymous and secure", but I don't see HTTPS in the URL. When I prefix https:// Firefox complains about untrusted certificate. Am I missing something?
The certificate being "untrusted" doesn't mean anything about security. It just mean that they have signed it themselves and that no central authorities that you are supposed to trust for whatever reasons has signed it for them. All you want here is an encrypted communication, and you get that with the self-signed certificate as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The certificate being "untrusted" doesn't mean anything about security. It just mean that they have signed it themselves and that no central authorities that you are supposed to trust for whatever reasons has signed it for them. All you want here is an encrypted communication, and you get that with the self-signed certificate as well.
No. Without a trusted authority or some other means to verify that the self-signed certificate is indeed coming from the site, there is effectively no security because it is trivial to launch a MITM attack.
¹ Actually it depends on your threat-model. If you assume that the first time you connect to the site there is no MITM (like we all do with SSH connections, don't tell me you always double check the fingerprint of the box you are SSHing to for the first time ;-)), then it is okay to trust the certificate as long as it doesn't change.
EDIT: formating