Jules8850

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Jules8850 4y ago

   I've also seen this spider, and upon close examination it appears to be using a large dump of URLs, many years old, including non-public, non-guessable URLs that could only have been harvested from some sort of browser/plugin data
2. 2.▲
   MasterCard recently increased FX fees 1000% – still better than Visa(fx.sycuse.com)

   4 points by Jules8850 10y ago|0 comments
3. 3.▲
   Dear Google, why does it take 11.84s to load a page on Google Groups?(twitter.com)

   4 points by Jules8850 13y ago|0 comments
4. 4.▲
   Notes on surviving today's EC2 outage(wormly.com)

   2 points by Jules8850 15y ago|0 comments
5. 5.▲
   Is hiring average programmers worse than staying solo?(answers.onstartups.com)

   1 points by Jules8850 15y ago|0 comments
6. 6.▲
   by Jules8850 15y ago

   Most likely the browser would not complain; it will block, fetch the intermediate certificates (if possible), verify the signatures, then proceed. So probably just a performance hit in most cases. Full explanation here: https://www.wormly
7. 7.▲
   by Jules8850 15y ago

   Specifically on the edge server we hit in that particular test (69.171.228.13), they haven't installed their intermediate certificate chain. Allowing insecure re-negotiation isn't too crash hot, either.
8. 8.▲
   Even Facebook can't get their SSL setup right(wormly.com)

   12 points by Jules8850 15y ago|8 comments