Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who else remembers when it used to be an insult? I preferred it that way.
Yeah. I remember TL;DR meant wall of text, kinda same way RTFM was used. It was a response to something not a tag to indicate what you were doing. How things change so fast on the Internet.
Bing doesn't support SSL
101–110 of 163 posts
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first I thought it was a joke from Google. Something like: "No you don't want to use bing, here is google."
...what kind of massage you received? My browser only talk about the warning, but i only have old chromium... Not auto-updating g chrome
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#103Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#104I made a site that checked for SSL cert expirations and misconfigurations, but I couldn't acquire any customers. I still think there's a business there somewhere, although maybe it really only sells as part of another product. Edit: If anyone wants a script to check their certificates, here you go: https://gist.github.com/bretwalker/5420652 . You'll just need to add in some sort of notification logic, especially for…
I usually put a check for "SSL certificate expires in less than 30 days" in the NMS. There is certainly a market for network monitoring as a service and this is a useful check to have in one.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL;DR means "here's a very short explanation".
Why not use the word "summary"?
It sounds like internet speek, it's cooler and more 1337.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#106Bing is important. It's a good search engine, comparable to Google's quality and size. And it's the only competition Google has in the US and most of Europe. (Sites like DuckDuckGo and Yahoo pass queries on to Bing). Dumb errors like this SSL problem are embarassing, but the larger frustration is how despite years of having a good product, they have so little market traction.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stackify created this exact thing after the last time this happened with MS Azure about 2 months ago. It's called certalert.me ( http://certalert.me ) and is a free service. It's not a huge business, but it was almost trivial to setup with all the advanced monitoring & diagnostics that stackify typically does anyway.
Very useful. It's not a super hard problem to solve, but I did think it provided enough value that companies would be willing to pay for it. SSL is used on the most important pieces of a business' infrastructure, I thought it'd be a simple sell. I also can't tell if certalert.me checks for hostname mismatches. That was another part of my service, because a misconfiguration is just as fatal as an expired certificate.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#108Slightly off-topic: what's a good way to handle cases such as this where you have a wildcard certificate? I'll be getting a wildcard certificate for a project and, never having used one before, I had assumed the certificate would be valid for an entire domain. I understand from this situation that a wildcard certificate is relevant only to https://*.example.com and not the subdomainless https://example.com . Assuming…
Typically a certificate issuer will grant you both when you buy a wildcard one. This can be achieved via SAN (alternative names): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcard_certificate#Limitation
Incidentally, beware of RapidSSL and their "free www." SAN; they only grant it in certain specific and undocumented circumstances.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first I thought it was a joke from Google. Something like: "No you don't want to use bing, here is google."
...what kind of massage you received? My browser only talk about the warning, but i only have old chromium... Not auto-updating g chrome
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
...what kind of massage you received? My browser only talk about the warning, but i only have old chromium... Not auto-updating g chrome
All people giving downvotes to this comment, I think you are being unfair to this person who just seems to have a bad English. He probably meant "message".