somesay

10 ms·

61.
by somesay 13y ago
Due to the features of public-key cryptography, we could let Google mirror all the small parties and still be sure that the information comes from them and is up to date. I don't see this as a valid argument.
62.
by somesay 13y ago
Well, if it comes to Flash updates, you might prefer Chrome which seamlessly upgrades itself and the used Flash package in the background. On the downside, slight UI changes might happen with new Chrome versions. Also Linux is still an opti
63.
by somesay 13y ago
Not in case of security, but you get likely more trust from your visitors. Also might include some assurance thing you can use or advertise with. But I wouldn't say it has any bad influence if it's missing, as long as you aren't a payment p
64.
by somesay 13y ago
> c. what country you're based in. How is that relevant? I would also say the targeted plattforms (which browser, OS) are the most important point.
65.
by somesay 13y ago
> If anyone can help there actually, any recs for good but non-expensive EV providers? StartSSL wants $200 for two years, additional ones cost $50 then. Haven't seen anything cheaper.
66.
by somesay 13y ago
It doesn't matter in any way. Especially it has no influence on security. A cert that works works. You might be interested in additional features like EV for the green/blue address bar or a assurance. But that's not the point.
67.
by somesay 13y ago
> The cheapest SSL options there ($20 and under) offer NO verification of the applicant of the certificate. Your logic is wrong here. It is totally unimportant which CA you use, as long as any commonly trusted CA just checks the domain
68.
by somesay 13y ago
There is no real bad or insecure option. Just make sure the CA is supported by all the platforms / browser you need and that the price is fair. Additionally you may check that their revocation servers have a good internet connection since b
69.
by somesay 13y ago
I don't know the details and also I don't know to which ISS cameras you compare, but those suit cameras have to be robust, flexible, likely low power consuming and bring a good reception. The interference with this analog technology isn't t
70.
by somesay 13y ago
Exactly. And I think that's pretty fair, too.
71.
by somesay 13y ago
It it is an obvious failure, and a general 90% discount clearly is, contracts may be canceled at any time. Additionally, if you read the terms, online orders are often just a request and need to be approved by the other contract partner fir
72.
by somesay 13y ago
I don't really agree that this is a good way. 90% discount is obviously a mistake and it is more than their right to cancel those orders. I would fully understand that. Processing those orders doesn't seems that fair to me. Same rare people
73.
by somesay 14y ago
3d transition with css (even if it's a 2d move) might help since this may use the GPU. Also make sure it isn't nested in too many elements since chances will cause rerendering the DOM elements up to the root. It isn't that bad and at least
74.
by somesay 14y ago
Your website sucks 30-35% of one of my CPU cores. Likely that's the parallax cloud effect since it's only happening when the tab is visible. You may optimize that.
75.
by somesay 14y ago
Actually, WhatsApp service that targets Android and iOS. And they made adding contacts super easy. No ICQ number, no XMPP handle, no username. iMessage is Apple-only, Google Talk has a slightly different concept and more complicated. any m
76.
by somesay 14y ago
Since WhatsApp is a company that just recently discovered SSL and learned that you shouldn't use the IMEI number to generate the account password ... everything just can become better. They are also successfully ignoring support things like
77.
by somesay 14y ago
Just to add, their recent invite blockade was discussed by them on a public mailing list.
78.
by somesay 14y ago
XMPP is used for Facebook Messager, Google Talk and even WhatsApp. Just WhatsApp adds proprietary options to it and does some weird key exchange on first signup. So there is e.g. no chance to log in from your computer or simultaneously runn
79.
by somesay 14y ago
Guy, you haven't got this right.
80.
by somesay 14y ago
A lot of companies make profit by selling SSL as an pro feature. Just look at all those services where SSL login is only available at a certain cost level. (And using SSL only for the login form is a joke, too.) It's a shame that these are
81.
by somesay 14y ago
Well, if you double-click on a html file on your computer, it will open that in your browser using file://. If you use the short `//example.com/foo.bar`, it is quite problematic. `//fonts.googleapis.com/css` becomes `file://fonts.googleapis
82.
by somesay 14y ago
I wasn't that wrong then. ;)
83.
by somesay 14y ago
Hint: Local testing/loading of html files might require a local server then, since file:// is then used for resources, too, and this is rather problematic.
84.
by somesay 14y ago
Again, if you embed non-SSL content into a SSL website, you are obviously doing something wrong. Regex in CSS can be used to guess page content. Also CSS can load SVG which may include JavaScript.
85.
by somesay 14y ago
You really care about that? Well, relative URLs (and maybe using a basename meta tag) might be a workaround. But seriously, I wouldn't care about these Microsoft's bugs.
86.
by somesay 14y ago
Just always use the https version then. There is nothing wrong in embedding https resources in http. `//` is just shorter and more flexible (e.g. you could switch of ssl if you want).
87.
by somesay 14y ago
Touché!
88.
by somesay 14y ago
You are trusting some third-party everytime you download a proprietary or just big open-source app. Even on Open Source, you just have trust in the public review. In that example you can read the source before, the chances of an evil change
89.
by somesay 14y ago
Oh, nice, you are right, should be compiled against OS' key storage. Actually it's wget who often doesn't care of that.
90.
by somesay 14y ago
Watch out. Does curl check the key chain against any key store? I bet not.

More ›