Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTTPS on NYTimes.com

open.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#111

Post by vertex-four »

Someone1234 wrote: post #61
cesarb wrote: post #53

Interestingly, Certificate Patrol warned me that the certificate at that site changed from a "Domain Validation" to an "Organization Validation" certificate from the same CA. Why did they do that change, and what would be the advantage for them of an OV instead of a DV certificate?

OV are considered more secure than DV due to the higher registration requirements[0]. Additionally a DV certificate is good for a single domain, OV certificates are good for all of that organisation's domains. For example the NYT's certificate is valid for: DNS Name=nytimes.com DNS Name=*.blogs.nytimes.com DNS Name=*.blogs.stg.nytimes.com DNS Name=*.dev.nytimes.com DNS Name=*.nyt.com DNS Name=*.nytimes.com DNS Name=*…

DV certs can certainly have wildcards and multiple domains, and no, OV certs are not "more secure" - they simply contain additional fields which suggest that a CA has taken some amount of effort to verify that the domains belong to a given organisation, which the end user can read. This is generally more-or-less useless, as I'm pretty sure we all know that nytimes.com is owned by the New York Times.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#112

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #16

It's nice to see more news media moving towards using HTTPS. NYTimes now joins a small club, alongside the Guardian and the Washington Post. Here's a dev blog post on the WaPo moving to https: https://developer.washingtonpost.com/pb/blog/post/2015/12/10... And one on the Guardian moving to https: https://www.theguardian.com/info/developer-blog/2016/nov/29/...

The Intercept uses HTTPS.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#113

Post by berry_sortoro »

skibble wrote: post #108
berry_sortoro wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I am a Neo-Nazi for using a the word Lügenpresse for press the lies and lies over and over again? And of course you link another fake news article claiming this word has roots on Nazi Germany when in fact this is a lie, its roots are in fact from earlier. But why care and do some actual research when you can just read political correct MSM Lügenpresse? This guild by association BS does not work on people who can a…

'Are you a neo-Nazi?' No-one here knows, but you certainly sound like one. The swastika carries a very potent and toxic meaning today that it didn't until the last century or so. If you think symbolism and language are namby pamby liberal constructs with no inherent meaning, I'd encourage you to spray paint one on your house or have one tattooed on your forehead and see if the people you encounter as a result share y…

I sound like one for the use of a world in a modern completely different context then the Nazis did? In fact much of the modern world is very Fascist, and I am against that. But thanks for being the poster child for exactly of that mindset I meant. I like the word because I am for one German, and I agree with its general meaning in this modern age in regards to MSM. And I will continue to use it.

The swastika is a very beautiful spiritual symbol used in India and all over the world. What are you trying to say? That its great how society tainted it to be never to be used again because some idiot used it for his sick crap in the past? Why use Autobahn then to drive cars on, Hitler build them they are pure evil you MUST NOT TOUCH EVER!

You use the fact that most people will not get any other use then to display allegiance to nazis (at least in most places, no idea about India and other places like that TBH) as a argument? This is a the very way of thinking I hate.

In fact it should be possible to use it (in steet art, on your house-wall, on your forehead ...). But people like to be slaves to their own minds, and they even like it. Its pathetic.

Oh I you think I use it as a "Code Word" thats funny. Not at all but think what you like. And here I thought there would be some intelligent ppl on MH.

Did you have a public crying thread around here when Hillary lost? lol (Not a Trump supporter BTW)

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#115

Post by openasocket »

berry_sortoro wrote: post #113
skibble wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Are you a neo-Nazi?' No-one here knows, but you certainly sound like one. The swastika carries a very potent and toxic meaning today that it didn't until the last century or so. If you think symbolism and language are namby pamby liberal constructs with no inherent meaning, I'd encourage you to spray paint one on your house or have one tattooed on your forehead and see if the people you encounter as a result share y…

I sound like one for the use of a world in a modern completely different context then the Nazis did? In fact much of the modern world is very Fascist, and I am against that. But thanks for being the poster child for exactly of that mindset I meant. I like the word because I am for one German, and I agree with its general meaning in this modern age in regards to MSM. And I will continue to use it. The swastika is a ve…

You can tattoo a swastika on your forehead if you want. That's perfectly legal in the US. But I, and most people, will assume you're a neo-nazi. You can tell me and everyone you meet how that assumption is wrong, but that will be their initial impression regardless. Do with that information what you will.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#116

Post by Klathmon »

bonyt wrote: post #96

"I'm all in favor of news sites using HTTPS, but I assume they're also going to pad all their articles to a uniform length?" Source: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/53504312624809574...

This isn't an "all or nothing" situation.

Enabling HTTPS is a benefit even if it's not perfect. The integrity and authentication it provides are alone a MASSIVE benefit (especially for a news site).

Now you'll know that your news is coming from their servers, and nobody else is tampering with it.

Then taking into account that it does provide confidentiality, you get rid of "dragnet" style data gathering and inspection.

You'd need to be targeted by someone who not only has a lot of time, but also is very up to date on the pages of NYT and their sizes to be able to track your article by its size.

No matter what, it's still harder than it was before to snoop on what you are doing.

It's a net gain in just about every single way.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#117

Post by berry_sortoro »

openasocket wrote: post #115
berry_sortoro wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sound like one for the use of a world in a modern completely different context then the Nazis did? In fact much of the modern world is very Fascist, and I am against that. But thanks for being the poster child for exactly of that mindset I meant. I like the word because I am for one German, and I agree with its general meaning in this modern age in regards to MSM. And I will continue to use it. The swastika is a ve…

You can tattoo a swastika on your forehead if you want. That's perfectly legal in the US. But I, and most people, will assume you're a neo-nazi. You can tell me and everyone you meet how that assumption is wrong, but that will be their initial impression regardless. Do with that information what you will.

For one I don't live in the US and I would have tremendous respect for anyone who would actually do this without being a nazi, trying to break the conditioning.

A beautiful women with an nice artistic face tattoo should do it, that could work I guess.

In Germany you need to be very crazy to do this, here you are legally forbidden to question anything about the Holocaust, I am not speaking of denial here, I speak of actually presenting any sort of evidence to a court. If you question anything about whats written in history books, lets say the number of Jews killed by the Nazis you are going to jail without a trail. You will be not allowed to submit anything to court. If you not blindly believe anything they tell you, your a criminal. You are not allowed to question anything about it at all. Now imagine how people react of you have a swastika on your head. Its probably illegal, I don't know but things are that crazy here. Swastikas were removed from video games where you actually fight the Nazis! People are crazy.

What is called conservative in the US and is perfectly normal for you, is called far right here. The political mid here what you call radical left. So in Germany's PC think I might actually be a Nazi.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#118

Post by Klathmon »

hannob wrote: post #75
Someone1234 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OV are considered more secure than DV due to the higher registration requirements[0]. Additionally a DV certificate is good for a single domain, OV certificates are good for all of that organisation's domains. For example the NYT's certificate is valid for: DNS Name=nytimes.com DNS Name=*.blogs.nytimes.com DNS Name=*.blogs.stg.nytimes.com DNS Name=*.dev.nytimes.com DNS Name=*.nyt.com DNS Name=*.nytimes.com DNS Name=*…

> OV are considered more secure than DV due to the higher registration requirements[0] Nonsense. OV is no more secure than DV, just more expensive.

To be fair, it's more secure in the sense that someone who gets access to their domain name service can't generate their own OV cert without more access.

They could however create their own DV cert.

So while it uses the same technology, if you see an OC cert you can be more sure that it's the actual organization and not a cert that just proves that the domain is the domain.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#119

Post by acdha »

berry_sortoro wrote: post #105
acdha wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need neo-nazis on HN: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21710866-1848-1939-hist...

So I am a Neo-Nazi for using a the word Lügenpresse for press the lies and lies over and over again? And of course you link another fake news article claiming this word has roots on Nazi Germany when in fact this is a lie, its roots are in fact from earlier. But why care and do some actual research when you can just read political correct MSM Lügenpresse? This guild by association BS does not work on people who can a…

Speaking of doing research, you might find actually reading the link undercuts your attempt to claim fake news: the second paragraph, for example, makes it clear that the term predates Nazi Germany by almost a century before noting ‘Lügenpresse refers to any medium that does not reflect the user’s own worldview, and must therefore be propagated by a hated “Other”.’.

The reason why I used “neo-Nazi” was that, again as noted in the article and many other sources, the term was avoided for years until various extremist groups started using it. Until Trump supporters started trying to normalize hatred for the media, I only saw it used by people who were also sharing anti-Semitic slurs and cartoons, racist memes, etc.

I'm sure, of course, that you already know the negative implications and were just trying to get a reaction but that doesn't mean there's any value to dragging that particular mess into this thread. There are plenty of corners of the internet where you can scratch that particular itch without polluting a discussion about a website enabling a security feature.

Re: HTTPS on NYTimes.com

#120

Post by snowwrestler »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #112
toomanybeersies wrote: post #16

It's nice to see more news media moving towards using HTTPS. NYTimes now joins a small club, alongside the Guardian and the Washington Post. Here's a dev blog post on the WaPo moving to https: https://developer.washingtonpost.com/pb/blog/post/2015/12/10... And one on the Guardian moving to https: https://www.theguardian.com/info/developer-blog/2016/nov/29/...

The Intercept uses HTTPS.

So does Quartz. Those sites are, technologically speaking, glorified blogs--not comparable to a major paper like the Times or Post.
Post reply on HN