Conversation
HTTP/HTTPS
Show content
Google started this concept of throwing up warnings for websites that are still using http as if there a massive security threat.

But if your hosting a classic old-web static page. Is it -really- a threat? Even if you had a guest page. The only thing a hacker would get over an unencrypted http page is literally the comment you just posted publicly on some dudes guest book anyways.

Am I missing something here? Or did Google Chrome only do this to make a bunch of SSL providers money?
2
0
1
re: HTTP/HTTPS
Show content
@S-Config i actually host an HTTP only version of my website for backwards compatibility, also because in some cases HTTPS isn't supported, like on Tor or I2P (although they have their own security things), as well as on OpenNIC, where nothing but self-signed certificates work there.
1
0
0
re: HTTP/HTTPS
Show content
@getimiskon I've been contemplating something like that. like making a subdomain called 'oldweb' for retro computers to link up to. Granted they wouldn't understand the HTML5 code i used on my site. My guess is that code would get ignored and the site would display similar to how lynx understands it.
1
0
1
re: HTTP/HTTPS
Show content
@S-Config HTML in general is backwards compatible, as far as I know, so the basics will work on every browser. Although i can't tell how an older browser would handle the newer stuff. But you can set up to automatically set up the web server to serve the HTTPS server by default and make the plain HTTP version available if you want to.
0
0
0
HTTP/HTTPS
Show content

@S-Config can get SSL certs for free now so not sure if there's a money component to it.

1
0
1
re: HTTP/HTTPS
Show content
@colinstu True. Most who are good with their server tech could script LetEncrypt to renew SSL all the time. But there's a lot of variance in technical knowledge. like people who go shared hosting or C-Panel. And thus, law of averages = users pay SSL.
0
0
0