3 ms·
Generally I hate these warnings because they are extremely stubborn while not really telling the user what could fix the problem. They also don’t explain why t
by makecheck 9y ago
Generally I hate these warnings because they are extremely stubborn while not really telling the user what could fix the problem. They also don’t explain why the error might show up today when everything was fine yesterday.
I’d much prefer a message like: “There is no way to verify that this site really is who it claims to be (possibly due to an expiration date, as sites must periodically renew their validations). The owner of the real site can resolve this error by using certification services such as LetsEncrypt. A secure connection is not possible until the site renews its validation.”.
- tptacek 9y agoThe user in this case is a random web browser piloted by a non-technical person. It doesn't make any sense to try to arm them with technical solutions to the problem; that's the site owner's job.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y agoI foresee site owners complaining, and then this bit of history being repeated: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/firefox-gets-complaint-for-labeling-unencrypted-login-page-insecure/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/firef...
- ancarda 9y agoWhat I find really interesting is the website in question, oilandgasinternational.com, now has SSL on by default now; it'll redirect you from any page if accessed over HTTP. Given that, perhaps we should just let them complain? It seems to raise awareness over the need for SSL.
- throwaway2048 9y agoErrors that were more informative than "Oh u made a boo boo :((" would be useful.
- theandrewbailey 9y agoEven if it did, there would still be a barrage of vague "I came to your site and there was a big scary error on it" messages from users.