3 ms·
Unlikely. They probably run on something too old to support TLS 1.2. Since modern browsers generally refuse to use TLS 1.0/1.1 unless an option is set manually
by bonzini 6y ago
Unlikely. They probably run on something too old to support TLS 1.2. Since modern browsers generally refuse to use TLS 1.0/1.1 unless an option is set manually in the configuration to do so, it would be an even worse experience for their users if they switched to https.
- giantDinosaur 6y agoWhy wouldn't you at least just reverse proxy the popular pages or hell, put them on S3 or something? The ones checked by the general public, at least, could be statically generated and stored in s3 with a simple schedule!
- ratww 6y agoThis is incorrect. They already have an HTTPS server that supports TLS 1.2, it's just being used to redirect to their HTTP server. This is verifiable by typing `curl -v https://www.bom.gov.au/ https://www.bom.gov.au/` in your terminal.
- cesarb 6y agoIt's not the same server. A "curl --head https://www.bom.gov.au/ https://www.bom.gov.au/" answers with "Server: AkamaiGHost", while "curl --head http://www.bom.gov.au/ http://www.bom.gov.au/" answers with "Server: Apache".
- mytailorisrich 6y agoThat does not seem to be the issue as others have commented. In large organisations technical issues are often not the blocker. Process, approval chain, etc. often are.
- ratww 6y agoProbably an even more mundane reason: they have personnel available to create the redirection and HTTP error page, but not to do the proper migration to HTTPS.