5 ms·
I think the current approach of allowing site owners to decide how they're going to support TLS is the right approach, browsers taking it upon themselves to enf
by Edmond 10y ago
I think the current approach of allowing site owners to decide how they're going to support TLS is the right approach, browsers taking it upon themselves to enforce it is a bad idea. Some additional reasons why it is a bad idea have already been mentioned by other folks.
When it comes to security, TLS is crucial to the security infrastructure of the internet as a whole; however most of the current security problems on the internet don't actually involve TLS vulnerabilities, even though those tend to make a lot of news in the technology press.
The bar for exploiting TLS vulnerabilities generally requires setting up a legitimate seeming entity and injecting yourself into the internet traffic routing infrastructure, it is very much possibly (and indeed easy for state actors) but it is a much higher bar for common cyber criminals.
- marcosdumay 10y agoHow is defaulting to https instead of http not allowing the site owners to decide? Currently site owners are not allowed to default into https on first visit. Trying both will give them this choice.
- 3pt14159 10y agoThey can decide themselves by 301ing to http and setting some sort of "I'm a crappy website, just use insecure requests" header.
- Edmond 10y agothey can't 301 if they don't already support TLS. If you attempt to connect to a site over TLS that doesn't support it, for starters port 443 is not likely to be open. 301 is part of the HTTP protocol, TLS is transport layer.