Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 25 2018, @06:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the wasn't-worth-the-work...-until-now? dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

As of today, Google begins shipping Chrome 68 which flags all sites served over the HTTP scheme as being "not secure". This is because the connection is, well, not secure so it seems like a fairly reasonable thing to say! We've known this has been coming for a long time now both through observing the changes in the industry and Google specifically saying "this is coming". Yet somehow, we've arrived at today with a sizable chunk of the web still serving traffic insecurely:

The majority of the Internet’s top 1M most popular sites will show up as “Not Secure” in @GoogleChrome starting July 24th. Make sure your site redirects to #HTTPS, so you don’t have the same problem. @Cloudflare makes it easy! #SecureOnChrome https://t.co/G2a0gi2aM8 pic.twitter.com/r2HWkfRofW

— Cloudflare (@Cloudflare) July 23, 2018

Who are these people?! After all the advanced warnings combined with all we know to be bad about serving even static sites over HTTP, what sort of sites are left that are neglecting such a fundamental security and privacy basic? I wanted to find out which is why today, in conjunction with Scott Helme, we're launching Why No HTTPS? You can find it over at WhyNoHTTPS.com (served over HTTPS, of course), and it's a who's who of the world's biggest websites not redirecting insecure traffic to the secure scheme:

The article continues with a list of "The World's Most Popular Websites Loaded Insecurely", tools and techniques used to gather the data, different responses based on the version of curl, differences accessing the bare domain name versus with the "www." prefix, and asks for any corrections. One can also access the aforementioned website set up specifically for tracking these results: https://whynohttps.com/.

Source: https://www.troyhunt.com/why-no-https-heres-the-worlds-largest-websites-not-redirecting-insecure-requests/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @07:49AM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 25 2018, @07:49AM (#712218) Journal

    So https magically makes webmasters stop embedding ads and scripts from criminals?

    Webmasters? No.
    The ISP injecting their content (read: ads) inside your traffic? Yes.
    Generally speaking: any MITM become harder and will be easier to detect.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:33PM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:33PM (#712655)

    Webmasters? No. The ISP injecting their content (read: ads) inside your traffic? Yes.

    Which is exactly why Google is doing this: to protect their ad revenue. It does the same thing in other, insidious ways. How many websites have Google Analytics? Yea, so Google can track all that traffic, right back to the user, and target ads.

    It's all about Google trying to protect their business model. And causing additional expense for anyone hosting web pages. It's evil folks. Evil for the sake of money.

    --
    I am a crackpot