3 ms·

I assume they didn't intend to compromise security. I think it's more accurate to say that they stiffed their users with adware that nobody wants in exchange fo

by eli 12y ago

I assume they didn't intend to compromise security. I think it's more accurate to say that they stiffed their users with adware that nobody wants in exchange for a little bit of money, and that were so indifferent to security and privacy while doing it that either didn't notice or didn't care that it was a fundamentally bad idea.

bdamm 12y ago
In my opinion that is worse. Most any clueful technocrat can tell you that injecting traffic into HTTPS sessions is a MITM attack. I am willing to bet that fact most certainly did make it to an executive level (certainly at the fishy company) and a choice was made to not care about that problem. The road to poor security is paved with indifference.