5 ms·
The pattern is dangerous because it trains the user to dissociate URL and legitimate content, and the best tool at our disposal against phishing is still the ab
by rtsil 6y ago
The pattern is dangerous because it trains the user to dissociate URL and legitimate content, and the best tool at our disposal against phishing is still the ability to use the URL to ascertain the legitimacy of a content.
- izacus 6y agoURLs haven't been associated with legitimate content for a long time now, since most of the things come from giant CDN companies like CloudFlare anyway. What you're seeing in URL bar has very little to do with where the JS code executed on your computer is coming from.
- sudoit 6y agoYes, but users at least know the js code loaded was done so on behalf of the webpage the url points too
- icebraining 6y agoDoes it matter if it comes from a CDN rented by the NYT or a computer owned by DigitalOcean but rented by the NYT? What matters is that the domain points to where the NYT considers is the correct source of their content.
- satyrnein 6y agoWith signed exchanges, the NYT is cryptographically opting into allowing Google (or other cache providers) to represent specific articles as being the NYT. It doesn't seem much different.
- popcorncolonel 6y agoDo you really think most smartphone users look at the URL anymore? Or even know what a URL is? From the non-technical people I've talked to, the answer is no, they don't know what a URL is, and that was happening before AMP came around.
- satyrnein 6y agoIt's the current amp status quo that trains users that legitimate content is sometimes on other domains. This change would restore the idea that the URL indicates the provenance of the content,