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

Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 497 posts

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#311

Post by ColonelPhantom »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #82
SifJar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the justification is that some people will think the website is legitimate if a legit hostname appears anywhere in the URL e.g. http://scamsite.com/microsoft.com/phish "looks" legit because it contains the string "microsoft.com" (and most "regular" users won't appreciate the different parts of a URL); under the new scheme, that would display only as "scamsite.com" and hopefully people are less likely to enter…

I think microsoft.scamsite.com would fool most of the people that scamsite.com/microsoft would. It's a very difficult problem. Can't we have something like certificates for domains, so we can at least trust the most potentially vulnerable cases?

Firefox's approach actually doesn't have this issue, it highlights only the actual domain. So for microsoft.scamsite.com, scamsite.com would be highlighted, and the rest in a darker gray.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#312

Post by gsich »

jakeva wrote: post #279
gsich wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari has little to none marketshare.

17% is little to none?

More like 3% on the desktop. Mobile is not really relevant here. The URL bar on those devices is obviously shorter to begin with because of less display width. So just showing the hostname is not much different than showing the hostname + 5 characters.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#314

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

cheez wrote: post #301
dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only difference is that Google has endlessly more clout and depth than AOL and my fear is that where AOL failed, Google may succeed. With Firefox succumbing this week, this is pretty horrible. I’m not a Richard Stallman type, but I think it’s come to the point where if you have even the slightest pretense of being a “free web” person, using Chrome or a Chromium-based browser has become unconscionable. This compan…

I use Firefox for casual browsing but heavy workloads need a better browser. So I have to use Chromium.

Firefox is a much more performant browser for actually rendering heavy pages.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#315

Post by noble_pleb »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #239
pdmccormick wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a large number of layoffs at Mozilla, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24120336 .

And strategic re-orientation as I understood it.

That's exactly what any CEO or "Downsizing Consultant" would say. That may be an OK situation for a corporate company, but for a non-profit foundation like Mozilla, its unhealthy and rings some disaster bells.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#316

Post by dgb23 »

badwolf wrote: post #145
donor20 wrote: post #68

Wow - top posts are conspiracy theories. "The only reason to do this..." "This is a security issue..." Google has millions / billions of users. From a security standpoint the focus should be entirely on the root domain, that is the only really meaningful root of trust. If you are talking about a security issue - the KEY security issue is ANY lack of clarity around root domain. "Showing the full URL may detract from t…

My first thought when reading this was relief... For my mother. I've spent most of my adult life trying to teach my parents to look at the address bar to make sure they're on bankofamerica.com and not some random phishing domain. That kind of falls apart though when it's... bankofamerica.comm.phishingdom.com/{random filler}/bankofamerica/user/login HN users are fantastic at thinking all technologies should revolve ar…

The root domain is highlighted in FF. This must be enough for visual testing.

If you want a more reliable approach then you need to work with a whitelist and clear warnings.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#317

Post by codingdave »

scott_s wrote: post #107

Something I haven't seen anyone here bring up yet: many URLs are meaningless to humans past the domain. For an example, look at the top of this page. The only semantic meaning in the URL for this post is `news.ycombinator.com`. The rest, `item?id=24156986`, is meaningless to a human. (But, of course, meaningful to HN's backend.) A lot of (most?) of the URLs on the web are not semantic . They're naked application look…

It isn't meaningless to all humans - we get screenshots sent in to our support team all the time, and even if the end user doesn't know what the URL means, the support team does. That quickly lets them recreate problems, find bad data, and give the devs enough information to reproduce bugs.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#319

Post by [deleted] »

donor20 wrote: post #68

Wow - top posts are conspiracy theories. "The only reason to do this..." "This is a security issue..." Google has millions / billions of users. From a security standpoint the focus should be entirely on the root domain, that is the only really meaningful root of trust. If you are talking about a security issue - the KEY security issue is ANY lack of clarity around root domain. "Showing the full URL may detract from t…

[deleted]

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#320

Post by wnevets »

jacquesm wrote: post #304
curiousllama wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOL had a particular mismanagement problem that Google doesn't have. AOL didn't lack depth: they literally had email (@aol.com), social media (AIM), video-calling (Vonage), cloud filesharing (Xdrive) and so much more. Ultimately, they failed because (1) they were overvalued to begin with and (2) had a bad innovation model (top-down) that led them to (a) over-commit to online ads and (b) under-commit to broadband. Goo…

> Google is reacting to the Walled Garden trend, not driving it. I could follow you right up to that bit.

Facebook and Apple have been driving those trends for well over a decade.
Post reply on HN