Google should start a "don't get Bingle Berried" campaign like Microsoft's Scroogled.
Don't get Fucked in the ass by Microsoft
Bing doesn't support SSL
121–130 of 163 posts
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'd be very annoyed to... have their access be denied by a local proxy Untrusted certificate chains is a valid security risk. If it annoys you that users are blocked from viewing your site because you haven't gone through the established and accepted practice of actually completing the SSL trust chain, that's not the local proxy's fault. My number one concern is the integrity and security of my company's data. Your…
Arrgh. Sorry, but this is an absolutely classic example of why "security professionals" get laughed at by engineers. This requirements analysis is just completely backwards. In the example in question (which frankly isn't very interesting, I can come up with hundreds of scenarios like this) I have a git archive I need to share with someone on an ad-hoc basis. For whatever reason, I'd like to do it securely, so it nee…
To answer your question, yes outbound and inbound SSH is blocked except through our secure gateways. Every security organization at every company will have procedures in place for bypassing the official policy on an ad-hoc basis. There's always going to be a one-off situation that requires a different set of rules on a limited time basis, and there are many ways of dealing with these exceptions.
On a broad basis, though, untrusted certificates are blocked outright. I'm sure you can understand that for every one-to-one or one-to-few valid communications like your case, there are dozens or hundreds of one-to-many not-so-valid communications. SSL has certificate trust built in for a reason. Engineers may laugh at security professionals, but we're here for a reason. Even though we're directly at odds with each other in approach, our goal is the same. You want to help further the business by pushing new software. We want to further the business by making sure that software is secure. No one benefits from the new e-commerce solution if the business bank account is completely drained the day after the product launches.
I can come up with a hundred good reasons why I should be able to enter a store after business hours, pick up a few things, and leave (I left the money on the counter!), but for some reason businesses still lock their doors. Do you laugh at them for having completely backwards requirements?
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#123Bing 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.
The problem is that whilst being 'close' to as good as Google is a real achievement, they miss by far enough that it actually matters to most people. Sure they might be godo enough that if they are a default, lots of people won't worry about changing, but not being as good as Google means there isn't much impetus for Google users to switch.
Yep, they don't offer any huge incentive to switch. Google has a much more robust search and as an android user I actually like the integration into Now.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#124Looks like it might be related to the reddit DDOS: http://www.reddit.com/r/redditTraffic/comments/1coaer/201304...
How?
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#125Earlier 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
This is the latest message: http://i.imgur.com/ogDhMQp.png
back to safety takes me to about:blank Does it take you to https://www.google.com/ ?
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#126This is the second major flub this year. Azure's cert expired in prod not many weeks ago.
Actually, it's been like this a really long time. I just noticed, that HN stories which have nondescript titles fare better, so I decided to conduct a little experiment. 1st spot on the front page seems to confirm my hypothesis.
Was it you who changed the submission title or was it some mod acting up yet again? The original was interesting and it wasn't factually inaccurate.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#127Google should start a "don't get Bingle Berried" campaign like Microsoft's Scroogled.
Don't get Fucked in the ass by Microsoft
No, not that. This => http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dingle+berry
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#128Neither does Hulu. https://hulu.com/
Amazon redirects to HTTP: https://www.amazon.com/
Netflix redirects to HTTP: https://netflix.com/
Etc... Etc... Etc...
Why pick on Bing?
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL;DR: Bing doesn't support SSL on www.bing.com and has never publicized it as a supported feature. The submitter had to manually type https://www.bing.com into the address bar to generate this 'error'. Bing does support SSL on ssl.bing.com and publishes various links on that sub-domain, such as https://ssl.bing.com/webmaster/home/mysites The fact that the https://www.bing.com redirects to the HTTP version should be…
>TL;DR: Bing doesn't support SSL on www.bing.com and has never publicized it as a supported feature. The submitter had to manually type https://www.bing.com into the address bar to generate this 'error'. Or use HTTPS Everywhere. Personally, I'd also like it if in future, web browsers would try HTTPS first and HTTP second.
I don't think browsers should assume that http://blahblah and https://blahblah refer to the same resource.
Re: Bing doesn't support SSL
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
What IE debacle? Trident is now widely considered to have the most correct HTML5 implementation in a major browser. It might not have all of the draft stuff that Webkit has, but it also doesn't require all of the webkit css hacks.
Well, it can certainly do a lot better ... check out caniuse.com for more details.
I think you missed missed point. Many of the features listed there are draft spec. Rapid adoption of early draft specs are what caused the current Webkit mess.
IE 10 doesn't have the most features available, I never said it did. What I did say that that the features that are present are more correctly implemented than other browsers.