Talk:2634: Red Line Through HTTPS - Revision history

Cwallenpoole at 13:16, 4 December 2024

2024-12-04T13:16:08Z

CalibansCreations at 10:31, 10 October 2024

2024-10-10T10:31:55Z

162.158.74.68 at 08:23, 20 December 2023

2023-12-20T08:23:16Z

NiceGuy1 at 04:33, 25 June 2022

2022-06-25T04:33:08Z

NiceGuy1 at 04:15, 25 June 2022

2022-06-25T04:15:51Z

141.101.99.32 at 10:35, 21 June 2022

2022-06-21T10:35:12Z

172.70.91.58: Reduce ambiguity...

2022-06-21T09:54:52Z

Reduce ambiguity...

172.70.86.64 at 09:42, 21 June 2022

2022-06-21T09:42:05Z

172.70.110.65: updated my comment

2022-06-21T02:12:35Z

updated my comment

172.70.230.63 at 02:10, 21 June 2022

2022-06-21T02:10:58Z

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 With pretty much any browser now, a red line through HTTPS means that the site _is using HTTPS_, but it is _not trusted by the browser_ (due to e.g. the certificate being self-signed or expired).
 [[User:Darrylnoakes|Darrylnoakes]] ([[User talk:Darrylnoakes|talk]]) 04:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 :I think the intended joke is that the site's certificate expired in 2015, instead of the site is not using HTTPS. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:31, 10 October 2024
Line 65:		Line 65:
	What if Randall decides to delve into the mysteries of the unlocked padlock? WE NEED A CONTINGENCY PLAN! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.65\|172.68.133.65]] 01:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)		What if Randall decides to delve into the mysteries of the unlocked padlock? WE NEED A CONTINGENCY PLAN! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.65\|172.68.133.65]] 01:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
	: breakdown part of Trickery fades in --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68\|162.158.74.68]] 08:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)		: breakdown part of Trickery fades in --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68\|162.158.74.68]] 08:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
		+	:: fnf reference i made as an ip editor, y'all can ignore this one [[User:CalibansCreations\|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations\|talk]]) 10:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:23, 20 December 2023
Line 64:		Line 64:

	What if Randall decides to delve into the mysteries of the unlocked padlock? WE NEED A CONTINGENCY PLAN! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.65\|172.68.133.65]] 01:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)		What if Randall decides to delve into the mysteries of the unlocked padlock? WE NEED A CONTINGENCY PLAN! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.65\|172.68.133.65]] 01:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
		+	: breakdown part of Trickery fades in --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68\|162.158.74.68]] 08:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :You can find some examples of the red line on https://badssl.com/, but pretty much in all cases you get a full page warning first that something is amiss. You can also try out the http connection at http://http.badssl.com/, http connections are a bit more complicated. Some browsers don't show a warning at all, while others only show a gray 'insecure' label in front of the url. And as can be seen here [https://blog.chromium.org/2017/04/next-steps-toward-more-connection.html], the plan is to eventually show similar warnings for HTTP sites as what is currently shown for HTTPS sites with a failed certificate. [[User:Jespertheend|Jespertheend]] ([[User talk:Jespertheend|talk]]) 11:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 ::Ugh, I'd hate that. I have a little webpage of my own, and I'm not in a position to be able to go https, :( That "badssl" site has several example issues, which ones go red/strikethrough? I want to confirm no browser I have does that. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 :I was about to remark the same thing, :) NEVER seen a strikethrough. I'm rather assuming it's something Chrome does, because I about exclusively use Firefox, and Chrome likes to be weird and non-standard (main reason I generally don't use it), and too many people act like there's no other browser than Chrome. Likewise, most I get is "Security Risk!", then find out it's a Bad Certificate, then it turns out it expired and they just haven't updated it yet. Stop being so dramatic, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 :::: (If the 'page'-level warning weren't so overriding, maybe the address-bar one would have been more noticable, but then the question is which of these indicators is the most informative/prophylactive... I reckon the entire page stopping you from progressing is the clincher, here.)
 :::: Mystery solved, but shows how blind one can be, to something apparently everyone else has noticed... Might ponder an edit of the Explanation, if I don't find that I misread that as well and it's actually explicit and correct about it had I not just assumed it said otherwise... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 09:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 Removed unnecessary line. The NSA is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the comic, nor any other intelligence agency, and it comes off as nothing more than an unnecessary conspiracy theory.
 What if Randall decides to delve into the mysteries of the unlocked padlock? WE NEED A CONTINGENCY PLAN! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.65|172.68.133.65]] 01:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ::I'm a Chrome user (part of the time, being the "handful of lesser flavours" contributor, above, but using it this very second) and I don't see it. But then I turned off its look-ahead (downloading of pages it thinks I'll go to next) because I'd rather it not, and as some sort of pre-emptiveness seems necessary to know a link ''should'' be red-struckthrough, I probably (hopefully?) neutered that stupid potential exploit too... So don't take my experience as gospel. (But still sounds like an Edge thing, to me, the way that's the new IE in the current browser ecosystem.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 :::It's not links (to other pages) that get the strikethrough. It's the protocol/scheme name in the current page's address bar. See, for example, the picture in https://superuser.com/a/369839/93954. This is far less intrusive than any of the warning pages you've mentioned seeing; maybe you just haven't noticed when it does that? For a current live example, in Edge, I'm seeing the (not red) strikethrough e. g. on https://self-signed.badssl.com/ both on the warning page and after clicking through it to accept the bad certificate. And as it happens, I could swear that just within the last few days I've been on a mixed-content website that displayed the strikethrough, but I'm not certain what website it was and I can't reproduce this now, so I'm probably misremembering. [[User:Chortos-2|Chortos-2]] ([[User talk:Chortos-2|talk]]) 23:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 I've made a rather large change to the page to better explain the meaning of a red line through https. I removed any mentioning of using the HTTP protocol as that is incorrect. If a browser uses the HTTP protocol it is shown in the url using 'http://'. Since the comic was talking about a red line through 'https' I'm assuming the usage of the HTTP protocol is unrelated here.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 ::: No, this isn't rendered on the page.  Go to https://badssl.com/ yourself and you'll see you can't use CSS to change how the https is rendered red with strikethrough in the address bar.  But I see Chrome use the red strikethrough display while Firefox doesn't, instead showing "Not Secure" next to the security icon.
 :::: Oh, ''on the adress bar''. That was never clear (and still isn't, in my view) as all I was seeing on baddssl was red (not-struckthrough) links that I could attempt to visit normally enough (but get the warning page) but the address-bar automatically goes and hides itself far too quickly, until I go and look for it specifically (which I often won't, unless I need to copy/edit it at all, perhaps).
-:::: It also 'only' marks the "https", where honestly I was expecting the entire URL, so on the very few prior occasions that I've had Chrome intervene with the "Your connection is not secure" whole-page pre-intervention I've mostly been trying to back-page away anyway and so my eyes have been aiming completely away from the bit concerned (either bottom-left or top-right) and thus this idea of highlighting the problem has somehow managed to completely evade my notice for however long it has actually been a thing... Even when I specifically went looking for it, a few days ago, in response to this comic!
+:::: It also 'only' marks the "https", where honestly I was expecting the entire URL, so on the very few prior occasions that I've had Chrome intervene with the "Your connection is not secure" whole-page pre-intervention I've mostly been trying to back-page away anyway and so my eyes have been aiming completely away from the bit concerned (the back-page is accessed either from bottom-left OS "back" or the browser's "back" on the menu toggle at the top-right - the <code><span style="text-decoration: line-through; color:red">https</span>://blah.blah.net/whatever/page/it?is=that&didnt=load</code> has its visual cue set far away to the top left) and thus this idea of highlighting the problem has somehow managed to completely evade my notice for however long it has actually been a thing... Even when I specifically went looking for it, a few days ago, in response to this comic!
 :::: (If the 'page'-level warning weren't so overriding, maybe the address-bar one would have been more noticable, but then the question is which of these indicators is the most informative/prophylactive... I reckon the entire page stopping you from progressing is the clincher, here.)
 :::: Mystery solved, but shows how blind one can be, to something apparently everyone else has noticed... Might ponder an edit of the Explanation, if I don't find that I misread that as well and it's actually explicit and correct about it had I not just assumed it said otherwise... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 09:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :::Until about 2015 no-one complained if you didn't offer HTTPS as long as you didn't request anyone's credit card number or offered .exe files: An internet site offers nothing but inherently untrustable text. It might contain ads that can execute any piece of javascript. It even could contain flash - so why pay a substantial amount of money to make the transport of that data more secure? Nowadays most web browsers tell on you if you don't secure connections and allowing the telco to see what data you download from where is felt as a privacy intrusion. On the other side not every hoster offers https for multiple domains...--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
-: 2015 is around when global information security and true news radically reduced. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 02:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
+: 2015 is around when global information security and true news radically reduced. The Let's Encrypt answer sounds like the right one, though. Somebody released an app to spy on people who weren't using HTTPS, and then sites adopted HTTPS widely. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.63|172.70.230.63]] 02:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not sure it's true that if there is a problem with HTTPS like an expired cert that the connection is made with HTTP instead. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.201|172.69.79.201]] 10:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)