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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:58PM

    by c0lo (156) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:58PM (#712770) Journal

    So basically, this whole "let's go HTTPS everywhere!" trend is simply making it so that small-time website operators are going to disappear and it'll make having a website more expensive.

    I'm hosting with Bluehost for a couple of hobby websites. In the light of the "HTTPS everywhere" they offered SSL certificates with no modifications in the price of hosting - see for yourself [bluehost.com] all their plans have "SSL certificate included".
    I have no doubts that Bluehost is not the only hosting service to do it.

    Great job for democratization, guys.

    I'm repeating my question: what has Google done wrong in signalling the connection to a site in insecure?
    They don't lie about it, just notify the visitors. The access to the site is not blocked.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2