3 ms·
While HTTPS has problems, you have circumscribed a set of objections (ranging from HTTPS being compromised to "oh I won't touch Let's Encrypt") that, if we're b
by eropple 7y ago
While HTTPS has problems, you have circumscribed a set of objections (ranging from HTTPS being compromised to "oh I won't touch Let's Encrypt") that, if we're being frank, seems to exist to give you something to object about, not to actually have a meaningful and good-faith conversation. One "agrees to disagree" on the fairly basic security concepts under discussion when they know they're just being contrary.
Not everyone uses OpenSSL, but within epsilon of everyone has used a nasty WAP that injects shit into pages. That is what, and only what, Let's Encrypt exists to solve--it ignores the ever-more-foolish conflation of encryption and identity and explicitly only provides the thinnest (domain-level) identity while providing good to excellent security against drive-by attackers.
- doublerabbit 7y agoThen why are we not fixing the problems that exist instead of plastering the hole within HTTPS? Or is that the best we’ve ever going to have? Corporations have ruined the internet yet we want to support them more. I refuse to gander anything created by the Linux Foundation. I dislike Linux. Would be my first point. Once upon a time I never held that view, but I do now. I am happy to have a good-faith discussion but as I am currently on limited time. My objections on the whole matter may sound cynical but are still valid. We are ignorant towards security and a big hack is bound to happen sooner or later. All battle grounds have weaknesses. I am on my mobile nor do I have the time right now however if i was however at my workstation then I would put concise in to my statements.
- eropple 7y ago"We shouldn't use the only thing we have, we should hold out for a hypothetical and highly-coordinated future that I refuse to substantiate." This is not "cynicism". This is not good-faith discussion.