3 ms·
Maybe irritating would be a better word. Or irritating that this is considered normal. The laid out attack cannot be used to attack the blog, because the blog
by Buge 11y ago
Maybe irritating would be a better word. Or irritating that this is considered normal.
The laid out attack cannot be used to attack the blog, because the blog is already so insecure.
- bandrami 11y agoWhat would HTTPS gain you or the blogger? I have literally no idea who oalmanna is, so a third-party saying oalmanna is oalmanna would be completely useless for me. I suppose it would keep a third party from knowing I read this blog, but I can't find a reason to care about that.
- brohee 11y agoWell with the shit some carriers pull, from injecting personally identifiable information in HTTP headers (http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-are-websites-getting-your-mobile-phone-number/ http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-are-website...) or code injection in the website content (http://www.infoworld.com/article/2925839/net-neutrality/code-injection-new-low-isps.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2925839/net-neutrality/code...), I sure benefit from an HTTPS connection everywhere...
- Buge 11y agoWell China injected javascript malware into http pages, joining people into a botnet that launched a DDOS attack on the github pages of human rights organizations, causing github downtime. https://citizenlab.org/2015/04/chinas-great-cannon/ https://citizenlab.org/2015/04/chinas-great-cannon/