5 ms·
Really cool. No HTTPS, though? :)
by enraged_camel 6y ago
Really cool.
No HTTPS, though? :)
- wolfgang42 6y agoThe site is HTTPS—if you’re talking about the mixed content warning, I’m hotlinking all the images so it’s unfortunately unavoidable.
- enraged_camel 6y agoAh, you're right. I just looked at Chrome's URL bar, and saw "not secure". Should've looked more closely. You're right about the mixed content warning being unavoidable.
- dan1234 6y agoYou could cache the images and serve them on your own domain. I’m pretty sure this is Reddit handles thumbnails in their lists.
- andai 6y agoOne of the top post images is 404ing so it displays a little broken file icon instead.
- wolfgang42 6y agoYeah, that page has very explicitly set an og:image that doesn’t exist. (It looks like it was intended specifically for that page, too.) It’s unfortunate but I’m afraid there’s not much I can do about it short of hard-coding a special case for that one post.
- xfan009 6y agoI'll echo what they're saying. I'm not getting SSL either.
- vikinghckr 6y agoIs there a reason that site needs to be HTTPS? It doesn't have any user login feature, and it's read-only. So what are the arguments for making it HTTPS?
- PhantomBKB 6y agoTo prevent a man in the middle attack. There's a possibility that a hacker could inject malicious scripts into the payload, or even completely change the content of the website that you think you are viewing.
- thekyle 6y agoSomeone sitting between you and the site (Wifi router? ISP?) could potentially inject their own scripts.
- dan1234 6y agoHTTPS stops the content being modified on its way to you. Some less than scrupulous ISPs have injected their own ads into pages, which would be prevented with SSL.
- vikinghckr 6y agoThanks. All pretty valid arguments, and probably enough to outweigh any potential slight performance/latency issue.