Yes, I understand the technical issues. And yes it's ugly. But do you
have a better solution?
On 23.04.24 08:53, Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 23.04.2024 um 08:51 schrieb Serge Droz via swinog <swinog@lists.swinog.ch>:
It's actually a pretty smart and light way of protection the majority of users
from malware. And yes, there will always be false positives.
And yes, it's sad we have to do this, but that's mostly because our industry,
despite promising the contrary for years, doesn't seem to be able to offer
secure services and products.
The fact is, that states are getting feed up with this and will start
legislating because we keep making empty promises and tell them they are stupid.
You don't have to believe me, but maybe you listen to John Curran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ip39Qv-Zk
Sorry for the rant, but I feel your reply is condescending and uninformed. Just throwing
around words like "internet police" etc doesn't solve anything.
Did you understand the technical issue this approach has? Certificates don’t
match, that is the issue.
--
Dr. Serge Droz
Member, FIRST Board of Directors
https://www.first.org
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list -- swinog@lists.swinog.ch
To unsubscribe send an email to swinog-le...@lists.swinog.ch
