21–30 of 42 posts
In the same direction, I once wanted to test an embedded device on crap wifi. So I just ordered the cheapest AP I could find. Except the damn device worked perfectly. Slow but rock solid. One of our testers at $CURRENT_JOB also has trouble simulating a crap network, because our network is good.
In the same direction, I once wanted to test an embedded device on crap wifi. So I just ordered the cheapest AP I could find. Except the damn device worked perfectly. Slow but rock solid. One of our testers at $CURRENT_JOB also has trouble simulating a crap network, because our network is good.
You can simulate bad wifi with the throttling option on the network tab of your browser's developer tools
In the same direction, I once wanted to test an embedded device on crap wifi. So I just ordered the cheapest AP I could find. Except the damn device worked perfectly. Slow but rock solid. One of our testers at $CURRENT_JOB also has trouble simulating a crap network, because our network is good.
For testing we ended up building a small linux box to proxy for the test environment in the office. We could throttle the throughput to any arbitrary level, introduce latency, and introduce packet drops. It's amazing how poorly a frontend will work when you throttle the network to 128kbps, and introduce a small percentage of dropped packets. But once you get the system to work (for some definition of "work") under those conditions you feel pretty good about deploying it.
Interesting. Chrome (146, macOS) shows no error messages on the revoked cert pages, but Firefox does (also macOS).
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/s...
found via: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/471199592#comment3
In the same direction, I once wanted to test an embedded device on crap wifi. So I just ordered the cheapest AP I could find. Except the damn device worked perfectly. Slow but rock solid. One of our testers at $CURRENT_JOB also has trouble simulating a crap network, because our network is good.
You can simulate bad wifi with the throttling option on the network tab of your browser's developer tools
Vanadium, Chrome and Firefox (all for Android) all accept all the revoked certificates... But revoked.badssl.com is considered revoked
In the same direction, I once wanted to test an embedded device on crap wifi. So I just ordered the cheapest AP I could find. Except the damn device worked perfectly. Slow but rock solid. One of our testers at $CURRENT_JOB also has trouble simulating a crap network, because our network is good.
Meanwhile HTTP keeps working just fine and is decentralized. Just "add your own crypto" on top, which is the ONLY thing a sane person would do. 3... 2... 1... banned?
to actually tackle this (on the off chance you're serious, I'm assuming not) - this doesn't work. The payload that implements your crypto cannot be delivered over http, because any intermediate party can just modify your implementation and trivially compromise it. If you don't trust TLS, you have to pre-share something . In the case of TLS and modern browser security, the "pre-shared" part is the crypto implementatio…
speaking of that, is there any way to verify that stored certificates are actually valid?
In the same direction, I once wanted to test an embedded device on crap wifi. So I just ordered the cheapest AP I could find. Except the damn device worked perfectly. Slow but rock solid. One of our testers at $CURRENT_JOB also has trouble simulating a crap network, because our network is good.
If you're going for realism, bad wifi is a radio signal problem.
In the same direction, I once wanted to test an embedded device on crap wifi. So I just ordered the cheapest AP I could find. Except the damn device worked perfectly. Slow but rock solid. One of our testers at $CURRENT_JOB also has trouble simulating a crap network, because our network is good.
Why not just loosely wrap the antenna or entire box in foil or move it to the basement/garage/roof? If you're going for realism, bad wifi is a radio signal problem.