6 ms·
http://discmaster.textfiles.com/ http://discmaster.textfiles.com/ Refreshingly no https because why would this site need it?
by TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
http://discmaster.textfiles.com/ http://discmaster.textfiles.com/
Refreshingly no https because why would this site need it?
- spijdar 4y agoRequiring HTTPS is one thing, though it's a little disappointing it doesn't offer it at all, even something retro like SSL. I figure this is an unpopular opinion among the target audience, but I prefer keeping traffic SSL/TLS encrypted, even with broken versions or self-signed certs, because anything at all discourages opportunistic packet capture and tomfoolery. I agree it's good for resources like this to not require it or force redirect, but it'd be nice to have something optional. Sure, there's nothing to hide here, but that's a bad excuse for not encrypting...
- account42 4y agoExcept there is no way to support HTTPs without ending up with people sharing https:// https:// links that won't work for non-HTTPs users. I really wish SSL/TLS would have used something like starttls. And yes, that means needing HSTS preload (or better yet a DNS-based alternative) to prevent downgrade attacks, but we do need that with https:// https:// anyway.
- prmoustache 4y agoLike non https users cannot remove the s manually?
- Waterluvian 4y agoWhat’s the practical cost to having it?
- nickdothutton 4y agoPractical “cost” is that it raises the bar on clients wanting to access the material, some of which could be very old I suppose.
- Semaphor 4y agoThat cost only exists if you enforce https, which is different from supporting https.
- ksherlock 4y agoFrom the horses mouth: "CSS, JavaScript and HTTPS are not required. This site works in text and vintage browsers."
- Waterluvian 4y agoAhhh!!! I 100% get that. So you can boot up some old computer and grab retro files. Love it.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoThere's a difference between not requiring HTTPS and not supporting it at all.
- Handytinge 4y agoIndeed. That difference is the unncessary additional work in supporting it.
- okasaki 4y agoTo prevent your ISP/public wifi provider/other jokers from inserting ads and malware into the sites your visit.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoI’ll accept the risk and not live in fear.
- okasaki 4y agoIt's not an idle fear. Before https there were ISPs that would literally insert ads and other javascript into returned pages. Beyond security itself, that kind of thing can break the content. There was also content filtering. Imagine your home internet being scanned and filtered like some locked down corporate network. Ewh.
- dncornholio 4y agoThis is also what CloudFlare is doing, is it not?
- account42 4y ago> It's not an idle fear. Before https there were ISPs that would literally insert ads and other javascript into returned pages. In some countries known for lacking consumer rights.
- Retr0id 4y agoSadly, that's most countries. (or at least, most people live in such a country)
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoTo be fair, a lot of those consumer rights had to be realized and invented first - after the corporations went too far. Think GDPR and co, if companies weren't so thirsty for danger and loading webpages full of trackers, it would never have (needed to) be made.
- pessimizer 4y agoWithout it, your ISP can see what pages you're visiting, files you are downloading, and your searches if they're in the URL. So the same reason any other site would need it?
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoSo they can see me download Oregon Trail from this website. Mine that data, in sure there’s gold there!
- chaxor 4y agoYeah! And get rid of those pesky switches too, hubs are all we need!