3 ms·
It's not an inability to access the site, it is explicitly receiving an invalid and unexpected response code, which indicates an impostor is returning responses
by 0x0 14y ago
It's not an inability to access the site, it is explicitly receiving an invalid and unexpected response code, which indicates an impostor is returning responses instead of apple.com. (Except this time, they screwed up).
- eridius 14y agoExactly. If apple.com goes down, that doesn't look like a captive network. It's only if the site is up and responsive and returning the wrong result (which is what happened today) that incorrectly indicates the captive network.
- drivebyacct2 14y agoI'm not buying that as an excuse for why the implementation REFUSES to let you on the WiFi. Besides the fact that it's terribly fragile (as seen here), but if it's really an anti-imposter measure, it's a pretty awful one. (Okay, we'll just MITM every non-apple.com URL).
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- eridius 14y agoIt has nothing to do with imposters. A great many wifi networks are open to the public, but redirect all HTTP requests to a login page. Think airports, coffee shops, hotels, etc. This is called a "captive" network. The apple.com request here is a heuristic to detect the "captive" network, so it can show a web browser inline that shows you the redirected URL so you can log in. This is actually a really nice feature when you're on a captive network.
- drivebyacct2 14y agoRight, as I mention in another comment, I'm well aware of this. However, it shouldn't be the end all be all and it should be more redundant anyway. It should use more domains. It should still allow the user to use the Wifi network if they want to. etc.