←back to thread

543 points gslin | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
pests ◴[] No.42191619[source]
It feels like just yesterday I was paying for certs, or worst, just running without.

Can't believe its been ten years.

replies(1): >>42191666 #
ozim ◴[] No.42191666[source]
Can’t believe there are still anti TLS weirdos.
replies(7): >>42191688 #>>42191718 #>>42191893 #>>42192714 #>>42192733 #>>42193057 #>>42193614 #
dijit ◴[] No.42191688[source]
The digital equivalent of a local kebab shop menu does not need encryption.

The lack of understanding from us as technologists for people who would have had a working site and are now forced into either: an oligopoly of site hosting companies, or, for their site to break consistently as TLS standards rotate is one thing that brings me shame about our community.

You can come up with all kinds of reasons to gatekeep website hosting, “they have to update anyway” even when updating means reinstallion of an OS, “its not that hard to rotate” say people with deep knowledge of computers, “just get someone else to do it” say people who have a financial interest in it being that way.

Framing people with legitimate issues as weirdo’s is not as charming as you think it is.

replies(6): >>42191746 #>>42191752 #>>42191760 #>>42191778 #>>42191785 #>>42191894 #
johannes1234321 ◴[] No.42191752[source]
TLS doesn't just hide the information transmitted, but also ensures the integrity. Thus nobody on the network tinkered with the prices on the menu.

Also the Kebap Shop probably has a form for reservation or ordering, which takes personal information.

True, they are all low risk things, but getting TLS is trivial (since many Webservers etc can do letsencrypt rotation fully automatically) and secure defaults are a good thing.

replies(3): >>42191784 #>>42191896 #>>42192727 #
dijit ◴[] No.42191784[source]
There are plenty of websites that were just static pages used for conveying information. Most people who set them up lacked the ability to turn them into forms that connected to anything.

They’ve nearly all been lost to time now though, if a shop has a web-presence it will be through a provider such as “bokabord”, doordash, ubereats (as mentioned), some of whom charge up to 30% of anything booked/ordered via the web.

But, I guess no MITM can manipulate prices… except, by charging…

replies(2): >>42191863 #>>42191985 #
matrss ◴[] No.42191863[source]
> There are plenty of websites that were just static pages used for conveying information.

If you care about the integrity of the conveyed information you need TLS. If you don't, you wouldn't have published a website in the first place.

A while back I've seen a wordpress site for a podcast without https where people also argued it doesn't need it. They had banking information for donations on that site.

Sometimes I wish every party involved in transporting packets on the internet would just mangle all unencrypted http that they see, if only to make a point...

replies(4): >>42191908 #>>42192753 #>>42192786 #>>42197635 #
account42 ◴[] No.42192753[source]
What ensures the integrity of conveyed information for physical mail? For flyers? For telephone conversations?

The cryptography community would have you believe that the only solution to getting scammed is encryption. It isn't.

replies(2): >>42193334 #>>42203926 #
1. matrss ◴[] No.42193334[source]
> What ensures the integrity of conveyed information for physical mail? For flyers? For telephone conversations?

Nothing, really. But for physical mail the attacks against it don't scale nearly as well: you would need to insert yourself physically into the transportation chain and do physical work to mess with the content. Messing with mail is also taken much more seriously as an offense in many places, while laws are not as strict for network traffic generally.

For telephone conversations, at least until somewhat recently, the fact that synthesizing convincing speech in real time was not really feasible (especially not if you tried to imitate someones speech) ensured some integrity of the conversation. That has changed, though.