4 ms·
1. Right. I suggested they probably should (with permission) to change the content. 2. The cache is a red herring. It wouldn't matter on the Cloudflare side if
by hsivonen 11y ago
1. Right. I suggested they probably should (with permission) to change the content.
2. The cache is a red herring. It wouldn't matter on the Cloudflare side if done on the edge. It wouldn't matter on the client, because the client would only see either the SHA-1 view or the SHA-2 view. Again with permission of their customers. If you have a SHA-2-intolerant browser, it's not checking for fingerprints. Chances are that scripts already break in legacy browsers.
3. The concern here isn't about corporate policies. A policy that says you have to stay on IE on an obsolete service pack of an obsolete system gets no sympathy. The concern here people in Africa/China etc. who can't affort to pay for an upgrade. Firefox, Xubuntu, Opera Mini, etc. are free.
4. Did you read the CA/B Forum email I linked to?
- viraptor 11y ago> A policy [...] gets no sympathy. That's a completely different argument then. There's a lot of users in both categories. I just disagree with blanket "It's not like users "cannot" upgrade". I did read the CA/B post which mostly deals with... enterprise internal policies and security relaxation. So what are we talking about here now? Poor 3rd world countries that can't afford upgrades, or enterprises? Non-enterprise users don't have an intranet zone. Re. cloudflare. No, I still disagree. There's a number of reasons why it's important to get exactly what the server sends. Even with permission from the user MITM-ing traffic to inject banners is a terrible idea that's likely to break things.
- hsivonen 11y agoThe Cloudflare ancestor comment raised the concern about certain countries--not enterprise. The CA/B forum post is relevant regarding the downsides of exceptions even if the thread there focuses on enterprise issues.