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

HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

nickcraver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 183 posts

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#111

Post by jfroma »

mrunkel wrote: post #7

At $previous_job we once turned on HTTPS for our entire customer website and online store, only to have our customer support team be bombarded by phone calls claiming that our "website was down." After much teeth gnashing and research, we determined that a large segment of our user base was still using WinXP and the encryption protocols we offered weren't available to them. We didn't think this would be a problem bec…

The other problem with Windows XP and https is SNI. You cant serve more than one domain with different ssl certificates from the same IP address, you either use SANs or different IP addresses. This does not only affect IE on XP but every browser.

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#112

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #110
cortesoft wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need an argument against absurd nonsense.

Better men than you have been beaten by absurd nonsense that shouldn't have needed to be argued against. ;)

I recall a woman who recently had this experience as well.

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#113

Post by [deleted] »

y4mi wrote: post #45
mattmanser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's hindsight and all that, but why didn't you check your website analytics first? Seems a fairly massive assumption that should have taken 10 seconds to check.

Some people don't spy on their customers and don't have these kinds of information available for analyses They're admittedly few though and their moral high ground is debatable considering that there are self hosted FOSS alternatives around nowadays

[deleted]

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#114

Post by beefsack »

y4mi wrote: post #45
mattmanser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's hindsight and all that, but why didn't you check your website analytics first? Seems a fairly massive assumption that should have taken 10 seconds to check.

Some people don't spy on their customers and don't have these kinds of information available for analyses They're admittedly few though and their moral high ground is debatable considering that there are self hosted FOSS alternatives around nowadays

I completely understand where you're coming from, but the User-Agent string is included in regular HTTP requests and you don't need to resort to overbearing client-side analytics to aggregate it; it's right there in the access logs on the server.

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#115

Post by nhylated »

oefrha wrote: post #97
niklasrde wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just know the username and you can log onto https://stackoverflow.com/admin.php

Warning: link's NSFW.

It opens a random youtube video everytime (I got several 10 hour vids including Jeff Goldblum laugh and relaxing hairdryer sound).

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#116

Post by glandium »

dzdt wrote: post #49

Stack Exchange is no longer available from my workplace due to this change. We have a strict no-posting-code-fragments policy, and SE was viewed as too risky to allow without some restriction in place to make it read only. Before HTTPS, the IT department had worked out such a read-only restriction by blocking the SE login with firewall rules. But with HTTPS that kludge is no longer possible, so the site is blocked.

Do they realize their employees can use 4G to access SE?

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#117

Post by ajdlinux »

glandium wrote: post #116
dzdt wrote: post #49

Stack Exchange is no longer available from my workplace due to this change. We have a strict no-posting-code-fragments policy, and SE was viewed as too risky to allow without some restriction in place to make it read only. Before HTTPS, the IT department had worked out such a read-only restriction by blocking the SE login with firewall rules. But with HTTPS that kludge is no longer possible, so the site is blocked.

Do they realize their employees can use 4G to access SE?

Not if they're forced to check their phones in. I have friends working in the defence industry for whom this is something they have to deal with.

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#118

Post by RangerScience »

astrodust wrote: post #92
mathattack wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many places (banks) there are legal reasons for this.

This is nothing that can't be addressed through training. Questions on Stack Overflow with generic code actually get better responses than those bogged down with irrelevant details. You should strip out all labels, namess, even extraneous fields that don't matter. It makes for a more generic problem and solution pair that can help others as well, and eliminates the problem of leaking proprietary information.

Maybe about half the time I end up answering my own question during this step. The act of genericizing the question ends up giving me some new approach, which either works, or leads me to new existing questions-and-answers.

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#119

Post by bpicolo »

nhylated wrote: post #115
oefrha wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Warning: link's NSFW.

It opens a random youtube video everytime (I got several 10 hour vids including Jeff Goldblum laugh and relaxing hairdryer sound).

Seems there's a limited set. It's a pool of 10 hour vids

Re: HTTPS on Stack Overflow: The End of a Long Road

#120

Post by bpicolo »

quintin wrote: post #54
tyingq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some reason other than cost to do that? Curious.

Mitigate attacks much better than Fastly, flatten CNAME etc.

> Mitigate attacks much better than Fastly

if that's the concern, probably just better to configure switching than put both in front all the time.

Post reply on HN