4 ms·
According to this[1], that's a permanent decision. Given that both Google and Mozilla have discussed plans that would eventually mark http:// http:// as unsafe
by pfg 11y ago
According to this[1], that's a permanent decision. Given that both Google and Mozilla have discussed plans that would eventually mark http:// http:// as unsafe in the UI, I don't think that decision is going to change.
[1]: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2015/03/06/tls-in-http2/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2015/03/06/tls-in-http2/
- lucb1e 11y agoWell there is a difference between unsigned encrypted and unencrypted, I'm not saying marking http:// http:// as unsafe implies that they'll always regard unsigned encrypted as completely unprotected, especially with closed source browsers (or browsers where development is a closed process). Thanks for all the information though! :)
- aidenn0 11y agoFrom the point of view of an active MITM attack there is no difference between unsigned encrypted and unencrypted.