4 ms·
The point is not your safety, but the safety of all your viewers. The more ubiquitous http is for the average internet user, the more worth the squeeze MITM be
by stevenhuang 3y ago
The point is not your safety, but the safety of all your viewers.
The more ubiquitous http is for the average internet user, the more worth the squeeze MITM becomes for the targeted user.
- echelon 3y agoThat's bullshit when you're accessing my website, where I have some photos of some old science projects and that's it. A much better middle ground would have been for websites to advertise certain features (login, user accounts) and for browsers to warn when not using SSL. Or to do it based on some heuristic, such as cookie use on a given domain. The current implementation keeps everyone non-technical from using http, which is a loss for everyone. Google unilaterally got to make this decision for everyone. Small websites don't matter to their bottom line anymore. They've already scraped and indexed the content, pulled the value away onto walled gardens, and left that web to rot.
- stevenhuang 3y agoyou're still not getting it it doesn't matter what content is being served the point is if your site is on HTTP a third party may silently inject malicious code into the response. any visitor that views your site now becomes subject to this threat vector. you may argue nothing will come of it, sure, but then you should make that your argument.
- bobmaxup 3y agoI don't remember that being the reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBhZ6S0PFCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBhZ6S0PFCY Google I/O 2014 - HTTPS Everywhere https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-r...