On Mar 10, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Saturday 10 Mar 2012 16:44:55 Daxter wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:11:19PM -0600, Daxter wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I'm all for HTTPS, but do we really want to outright *remove* 
>>>> functionality from the site? Sure, HTTP isn't secure and all "modern" web 
>>>> browsers support it. However, we would be making it harder for people to 
>>>> learn about Freenet and potentially try it out. 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why? You could still access it over HTTP... and be presented with 
>>> (transparent) redirect to the secure version.
>> 
>> I just scratched an itch and discovered that even Lynx supports HTTPS? If it 
>> really is the case that HTTPS has become so ubiquitous that users wouldn't 
>> be affected, then sure, go ahead with it.
>> 
>> HOWEVER: the question really needs to be restated. Are there any countries 
>> or ISPs that are known to disallow secure communications?
>> 
>>>> In the end I think we should do what every major website does today: 
>>>> encrypt the important data and let the entire site be accessible securely, 
>>>> but don't force it onto people.
>>>> 
>>>> -Daxter
>>> 
>>> It's very difficult to do and most websites do it wrong. You have to think 
>>> about mixed-content errors, cookie flags, ...
>>> 
>>> Sending credentials in cleartext like we do on the wikis, with no secure 
>>> alternative, is a disgrace.
>>> 
>>> Florent
>> 
>> 
>> Can you give me an example of a website that in your mind does either the 
>> mixed model or the secure-only model properly? It would be nice to compare 
>> with them.
>> 
>> Actually, the wiki supports HTTPS right now. You'll get a certificate error, 
>> but it works.
> 
> Why do you get a cert error? We have a wildcard cert!
>> 
>> While we're on the subject (as I've never bothered with HTTPS on the site 
>> until now), turns out it's rather misconfigured. Both the wiki and the main 
>> site return a certificate for emu.freenetproject.org? That address isn't 
>> accessible--what was it, and shouldn't we get this fixed?
> 
> Eh? I thought we used the wildcard cert for everything?

Nope, both are using a cert for emu.freenetproject.org. Also, the certificate 
is bound to expire on 4/27/2012 so we really should get this fixed!


Reply via email to