3 ms·
1. multi certs. a benefit to all. no reason all browsers should not adopt. w3c gets behind. 2. oh, you don't have a Google cert store cert in your bundle? why
by 1oooqooq 2y ago
1. multi certs. a benefit to all. no reason all browsers should not adopt. w3c gets behind.
2. oh, you don't have a Google cert store cert in your bundle? why would you not want the best and free cert? seems suspicious, going to lower your google rank.
3. now that everyone have a google cert, chrome switches to using only that.
convoluted, yes, but then you have the exact same setup as today, with google making all the decisions
- gruez 2y ago1. Can't they already do this (ie. favoring sites that have google issued certificates, or are hosted by google CDN) today? What does supporting multi-certificates have anything to do with it? 2. Google isn't a transit provider. Therefore they aren't really in a position to abuse their position to MITM traffic. 3. Google already controls the chrome browser itself. If they want your data they don't have to MITM you, they can just upload it after it's been decrypted by TLS
- 1oooqooq 2y ago1 they do. and get backlash when they do it more openly, e.g. amp 2 they already do things like hitting THEIR dns servers for all links on a page you're reading "for performance". you have no idea what is in play here if you think "omg google is going to phish me my bank password with a fake login page". you're way out of your water here. 3 they can't because of backlash and that would move people to other browsers. they have to slow boil you. see point 1