131–140 of 268 posts
> What's worse, many plaintext HTTP connections today are entirely invisible to users, as HTTP sites may immediately redirect to HTTPS sites. That gives users no opportunity to see Chrome's "Not Secure" URL bar warnings after the risk has occurred, and no opportunity to keep themselves safe in the first place. What is the risk exactly? A man-in-the-middle redirect to a malicious https site?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run my blog in unencrypted HTTP/1.1 just to make a point that we do not have to depend on third parties to publish content online. And I noticed that Whatsapp is even worse than Chrome, it opens HTTPS even if I share HTTP links.
Depend on one less third party, you still depend on the DNS Root servers, your ISP / hosting, domain registry, etc.
I distinctly remember trying to sign up for Pandora’s premium plan back in 2012 and their credit card form being served and processed over HTTP. I emailed them telling them that I wanted to give them my money if they would just fix the form. They never got back to me or fix it for several more years while I gave my money to Spotify. Back then HTTPS was NOT the norm and it was a battle to switch people to it. Yes it i…
I remember even back in the early 2000s https for credit card forms was pretty common. Surprised a company like Pandora wasn't with it by thr 2010s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depend on one less third party, you still depend on the DNS Root servers, your ISP / hosting, domain registry, etc.
CAs are uniquely assertive about their right to cut off your access. My hosting provider may accidentally fuck up, but they'll apologise and fix it. My CA fucks up, they e-mail me at 7pm telling me I've got to fix their fuck-up for them by jumping through a bunch of hoops they have erected, and they'll only give me 16 hours to do it. Of course, you might argue my hosting provider has a much higher chance of fucking u…
Prediction: Wifi captive portal vendors will not react to this until after 90% of their customerbase has their funding dry up. It is incredibly common for public wifi captive portals to be built on a stack of hacks, some of which require the inspection of HTTP and DNS requests to function. *Yes better tools exist, but they dont arent commonly used, and require Portal, WAP and Client support. Most vendors just tell pe…
To be fair, most people connecting to captive portal networks are more likely to be doing so on their phones, and I don't think IOS even allows non-Safari browsers for captive Wi-Fi login. I'm unsure how they'll fix this for Android though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run my blog in unencrypted HTTP/1.1 just to make a point that we do not have to depend on third parties to publish content online. And I noticed that Whatsapp is even worse than Chrome, it opens HTTPS even if I share HTTP links.
There are dozens of us I guess that care about this kind of thing. I have never really understood the obsession with https for static content that I don't care if anyone can see I am reading like a blog post. HTTPS should be for things that matter, everything else can, and think should use HTTP when it is not necessary. Depending on yet another third party to provide what is IMHO a luxury should not be required, and…
Shine on you crazy diamond, and all that, but...
> I have been continually confused as to why it is being forced down everyone's throat.
Have you never sat on public wifi and tried to open an http site? These days it is highly likely to be MITM'd by the wifi provider to inject ads (or worse). Even residential ISPs that one pays for cannot be trusted not to inject content, if given the opportunity, because they noticed that they are monopolies and most users cannot do anything about it.
You don't get to choose the threat model of those who visit your site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depend on one less third party, you still depend on the DNS Root servers, your ISP / hosting, domain registry, etc.
Host an onion website at home using solar energy, and the only third party your website will depend on is your internet provider :)
If someone doesn't like it, they can stay behind on the old DNS system or they can launch a new blockchain with their own version of reality... It's retarded that we need to have one version of reality for the entire planet. If someone in China wants to own facebook.com, they should be allowed. Heck, it could be a separate silo per city. The age of copyright and trademark is over. I don't see AI companies distributing royalties to people who wrote its training set...
Mmmm, great that and mandatory key rotation every 90 days, plus needing to get a cert from an approved CA, means just that more busy work to have an independent web presence. I don't like people externalizing their security policy preferences. Yes this might be more secure for a class of use-cases, but I as a user should be allowed to decide my threat model. It's not like these initiatives really solve the risks pose…
> I as a user should be allowed to decide my threat model
Asking you if you want to proceed is allowing you to decide your threat model.
> We have so much compliance theater around email, and we still have exactly the same threats and issues as existed twenty years ago.
...and yet we have largely eliminated entire classes of issue on the web with the shift to HTTPS, to the point where asking users to opt-in to HTTP traffic is actually a practical option, raising the default security posture with minimal downside.