Paul Schreiber blogs about the tech behind the websites of presidential candidates. "So, you want to run a country. Can you hire someone who can run a website? ...Here's how the (declared) candidates' sites fare." There's a table comparing 4 candidates' sites based on HTTPS, URL permutations, IPv6, SSL rating, and other related qualities. Schreiber mentions that he will "update this as more candidates declare or sites change."
From the blog comments
HillaryClinton.com was using IIS (and no https) until Sunday morning, when they switched over.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday April 18 2015, @06:10PM
The good can also be tools of evil if people are satisfied with the so-called good and forget to deal with the evil.
Sure, use HTTPS/encryption in cases where it makes sense to do so - but do NOT forget that the evil must still be dealt with. Keep looking for an opportunity to destroy the evil at the root of the problem.
If all encryption were 100% unbreakable by anybody, you'd still be exposed to powerful metadata analysis by the criminals in the NSA, et al.: "We kill people based on metadata [rt.com]." -Michael Hayden, former CIA and NSA director
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2015, @02:16AM
> The good can also be tools of evil if people are satisfied with the so-called good and forget to deal with the evil.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've already been down that path in this same thread. Thanks for regurgitating:
>> The NSA and other agencies with compromised CAs are not the only threat out there.
> If all encryption were 100% unbreakable by anybody, you'd still be exposed to powerful metadata analysis by the criminals in the NSA, et al.:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2015, @08:17AM
I'll consider it just as soon as people stop implying that the use of known-broken cryptosystems is some sort of panacea, then getting indignant when the brokenness is brought up by others.