SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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/.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:45AM (1 child)
If you're site serves only cleartext _static_ content, it would be trivial for Charlie to serve that very same static content, but with the addition of some Javascript that the end-user never sees is there, that then sends them some malware.
In addition, I know of at least one exploit that resulted from specially-crafted images. My entire company disconnected from The Tubes until we were able to install Microsoft's patch
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:28PM
Not with the restrictions in the parent post: The web page the browser receives would contain JavaScript, and therefore the browser would alert you.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.