3 ms·
I really don't see how this is a "serious problem". The only thing unencrypted is the site's domain name. Who cares? Site domains are public anyways. Defini
by holtalanm 10y ago
I really don't see how this is a "serious problem".
The only thing unencrypted is the site's domain name. Who cares? Site domains are public anyways.
Definitely two opinions on this matter, I suppose. But for me, I really don't care that they don't encrypt the domain names for the sites.
- rocqua 10y agoMetadata matters. The NSA revelations have shown this. For a really simple example, I guess there are quite a few people with a pornhub account in their vault. I'd guess a significant portion of those users don't want that fact to become public.
- danbruc 10y agoDomain names are public, what should not be public is the set of domain names you have accounts for.
- dsp1234 10y agoIt's not just the domain name, it's the full URL. Which could contain embedded username, organizational and/or sensitive information. FTA, which is clearly more than a domain name: https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin
- sixothree 10y agoIt's fine you don't care about these things. Are you also suggesting you would prefer to be oblivious to the security of your passwords? Are you also unable to see why other people would very much care about this issue?