Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #51123 > unrolled thread

With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-10-09 08:41 -0500
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-09 15:50 +0000
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-10-09 11:35 -0500
        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-09 19:37 +0200
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-09 21:00 +0000
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2018-10-10 00:28 +0200
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-10-10 02:01 +0200
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 19:54 +0200
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break elvis-85650@notatla.org.uk - 2018-10-09 21:53 +0000
    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-09 14:40 -0600
      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-09 23:17 +0200
        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-09 16:18 -0600
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 06:45 +0200
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 14:46 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 09:28 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 16:05 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 10:26 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:23 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2018-10-10 08:32 -0700
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:17 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 13:52 -0400
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 18:15 +0000
                        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 15:01 -0400
                          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 19:49 +0000
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 18:02 +0200
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 19:26 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 18:11 +0000
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-10 20:12 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:42 +0200
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-11 10:23 +0000
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-11 19:03 +0200
                        Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-11 17:33 +0000
                          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2018-10-11 22:00 +0200
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-10-10 16:22 -0400
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:46 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-10 21:14 +0000
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2018-10-11 15:40 -0400
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@blackhole.io> - 2018-10-11 15:08 -0500
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2018-10-11 20:56 +0000
          Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 08:55 -0400
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 16:10 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 10:31 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-10 22:49 +0200
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-11 07:32 +0100
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-10 08:45 -0600
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-10 14:06 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2018-10-10 13:44 -0600
            Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-11 07:30 +0100
              Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-11 09:24 -0400
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-11 19:02 +0200
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-11 14:12 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-10-12 01:01 +0200
                Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Chuck Rhode <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> - 2018-10-12 20:30 -0500
                  Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-12 22:05 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Chuck Rhode <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> - 2018-10-13 07:41 -0500
                      Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2018-10-13 09:59 -0400
                    Re: With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2018-10-15 19:14 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#51123 — With Chrome 70, hundreds of popular websites are about to break

  Google, what a pal!

<https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#51125

On 2018-10-09, anon <noreply@mixnym.net> wrote:
>   Google, what a pal!
>
><https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>

The security certificate provider Symantec proved to be highly insecure and
incompetent, and you blame Google for removing them from its list of
trusted security certificate providers? 
Your committment to security is noted. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51126

It happens that William Unruh formulated :
> On 2018-10-09, anon <noreply@mixnym.net> wrote:
>>   Google, what a pal!
>> 
>> <https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>
>
> The security certificate provider Symantec proved to be highly 
> insecure and incompetent, and you blame Google for removing them from 
> its list of trusted security certificate providers? 
> Your committment to security is noted. 

  Google is also culpable.  But I am happy to see that I have offended 
a Google employee.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51128

On 09/10/2018 18.35, anon wrote:
> It happens that William Unruh formulated :
>> On 2018-10-09, anon <noreply@mixnym.net> wrote:
>>>   Google, what a pal!
>>>
>>> <https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>
>>
>> The security certificate provider Symantec proved to be highly
>> insecure and incompetent, and you blame Google for removing them from
>> its list of trusted security certificate providers? Your committment
>> to security is noted. 
> 
>  Google is also culpable.  But I am happy to see that I have offended a
> Google employee.

In what exactly is google culpable about this certificate issue?

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51134

On 2018-10-09, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 18.35, anon wrote:
>> It happens that William Unruh formulated :
>>> On 2018-10-09, anon <noreply@mixnym.net> wrote:
>>>>   Google, what a pal!
>>>>
>>>> <https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>
>>>
>>> The security certificate provider Symantec proved to be highly
>>> insecure and incompetent, and you blame Google for removing them from
>>> its list of trusted security certificate providers? Your committment
>>> to security is noted. 
>> 
>>  Google is also culpable.  But I am happy to see that I have offended a
>> Google employee.
>
> In what exactly is google culpable about this certificate issue?
>

And who is this Google employee you have offended?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51138

In article <ppj4tp$9hb$2@dont-email.me>
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-09, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> > On 09/10/2018 18.35, anon wrote:
> >> It happens that William Unruh formulated :
> >>> On 2018-10-09, anon <noreply@mixnym.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ā  Google, what a pal!
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>
> >>>
> >>> The security certificate provider Symantec proved to be highly
> >>> insecure and incompetent, and you blame Google for removing them from
> >>> its list of trusted security certificate providers? Your committment
> >>> to security is noted.
> >>
> >> Ā Google is also culpable.Ā  But I am happy to see that I have offended a
> >> Google employee.
> >
> > In what exactly is google culpable about this certificate issue?
> >
>
> And who is this Google employee you have offended?

The evil voices in his head?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51139

In article <ppiip3$fnn$1@dont-email.me>
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-09, anon <noreply@mixnym.net> wrote:
> >   Google, what a pal!
> >
> ><https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>
>
> The security certificate provider Symantec proved to be highly insecure and
> incompetent, and you blame Google for removing them from its list of
> trusted security certificate providers?
> Your committment to security is noted.

Symantec, preferred target of Ransomware.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51129

On 9/10/18 15:41, anon wrote:
>  Google, what a pal!
> 
> <https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>

You do realize that Symantec was just allowing third parties to issue
certificates without the required overview? In essence, that just breaks
all the trust in the whole CA system (which has always been broken to
begin with, but, okay).

I'm not a fan of google, but here they actually do the right thing for once.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51136

On 2018-10-09, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:
> On 9/10/18 15:41, anon wrote:
>>  Google, what a pal!
>> 
>> <https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/chrome-hundreds-of-sites-to-break/>
>
> You do realize that Symantec was just allowing third parties to issue
> certificates without the required overview? In essence, that just breaks
> all the trust in the whole CA system (which has always been broken to
> begin with, but, okay).
>
> I'm not a fan of google, but here they actually do the right thing for once.

And it's been on the way a long time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51132

On 10/09/2018 07:41 AM, anon wrote:
>   Google, what a pal!

I've heard that Firefox, Internet Explorer, and I think Safari, are also 
dropping Symmantec's root CA.

This is not just Google being evil.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51135

On 10/9/18 10:40 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 07:41 AM, anon wrote:
>>   Google, what a pal!
> 
> I've heard that Firefox, Internet Explorer, and I think Safari, are also
> dropping Symmantec's root CA.

Yes, Mozilla will also drop support for Symantec root CA certificates as
indicated in the following blog post:

https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/03/12/distrust-symantec-tls-certificates/


> This is not just Google being evil.

The evil party is Symantec and no one else and if you won't be able to
access a site, then you know the one running the site don't care about
your privacy.


-- 

 //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51137

On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
> … you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.

I disagree.

I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice) 
webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.

Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them 
not caring about your privacy.

I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh 
REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after 
browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51142

On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> then you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
> 
> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
> not caring about your privacy.
> 
> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.

I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
browser maintainers for a long time.
If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.

-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51143

On 10/10/2018 06.45, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 10/10/18 12:18 AM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 03:17 PM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> then you know the one running the site don't care about your privacy.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> I've run into *WAY* too many … barely competent (I'm being nice)
>> webmasters that don't know that they need to change the TLS certificate.
>>
>> Their competency level does not directly correlate / translate to them
>> not caring about your privacy.
>>
>> I'd bet that a lot of them will say something along the lines of "Oh
>> REDACTED! I need to get this changed.  I wish I had known!!!" after
>> browsers drop support for the Symantec CA.
> 
> I would say it's a poor excuse, the information has been shared by the
> browser maintainers for a long time.

And you assume that they read those? Why?
Me, I found out this week.

> If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
> about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
> there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
> knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.

No, I do not agree.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51145

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| > If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
| > about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
| > there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
| > knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
|
| No, I do not agree.
|

  If you bought the certificate directly then why
wouldn't you have looked into that? Personally I
care about privacy but only regard https as a
nice extra. My webhost handles that and I don't
know where they're getting the certificate. But
if you buy it yourself you should know what you're
buying. And who doesn't know to avoid Symantec?
They've got a shady history going all the way back
to the 90s.

  A similar example would be Wordpress denizens.
They use Wordpress for hosting because they don't
know what they're doing. Then they use script
gadgets that WP provides. Then they don't update
them because they don't know it matters, so WP
ends up being a slum of risky websites.
   Should they know what they're doing? Of course.
Though WP is partially to blame. If they're going to
enable people with no knowledge to create websites
then they should also be handling things like updating
gadget code when fixes are written.

    But I think in a lot of cases websites are being
created mainly by graphic artists who are not
tech-educated. They've just come up with tools
to "get around that problem". With all the WYSIWYG
tools available, people just don't need to know what
they're doing. They're like microwave chefs. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51146

On 10/10/2018 15.28, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> 
> | > If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
> | > about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
> | > there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
> | > knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
> |
> | No, I do not agree.
> |
> 
>   If you bought the certificate directly then why
> wouldn't you have looked into that? Personally I
> care about privacy but only regard https as a
> nice extra. My webhost handles that and I don't
> know where they're getting the certificate. But
> if you buy it yourself you should know what you're
> buying. And who doesn't know to avoid Symantec?

I don't.

> They've got a shady history going all the way back
> to the 90s.

News to me. O:-)

I used PCtools back then and it was a wonderful tool. I think I also
used an antivirus from them at some point.

Later on I switched to Linux, so most Windows software companies are
irrelevant to me.


>   A similar example would be Wordpress denizens.
> They use Wordpress for hosting because they don't
> know what they're doing. Then they use script
> gadgets that WP provides. Then they don't update
> them because they don't know it matters, so WP
> ends up being a slum of risky websites.
>    Should they know what they're doing? Of course.
> Though WP is partially to blame. If they're going to
> enable people with no knowledge to create websites
> then they should also be handling things like updating
> gadget code when fixes are written.

Why should they know? If I'm a garage owner and they talk me into paying
for a web site to announce my garage, it is very possible that I know
nothing about computers beyond reading my email.

I know people that own Windows computers with updates disabled for two
or more years. Possibly the person that installed Windows disabled the
updates because otherwise they would get phone calls everyday, LOL.

So yes, what google or firefox do blocking those web sites with those
certificates is the correct thing to do.

>     But I think in a lot of cases websites are being
> created mainly by graphic artists who are not
> tech-educated. They've just come up with tools
> to "get around that problem". With all the WYSIWYG
> tools available, people just don't need to know what
> they're doing. They're like microwave chefs. 

Exactly.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51148

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

|> And who doesn't know to avoid Symantec?
|
| I don't.
|
| > They've got a shady history going all the way back
| > to the 90s.
|
| News to me. O:-)
|
  Their system tools were increasingly bloated and
the "doctor" was of no real value.
  They also have a trdition of buying up top-ed
software gutting it.

Quarterdeck Clean Sweep -- Started out as a program
that could back up virtually any installed program into
a portable, installable package. Symantec bought it
and put it into their system works as a useless tool.

AtGuard -- The first really good Windows firewall. Arguably
still the best. Symantec licensed it, repackaged it as
their own firewall, set 700+ programs to be allowed
through by default, doubled the price, and marketed
the hell out of it.

Powerquest disk utilities -- Symantec bought them
and gutted them, turning Drive Image (a floppy-
based disk imaging tool) into a useless, .Net-based,
bloated backup tool. (Not only my opinion. It was
widely panned in the tech media.)

  It's a pattern. Buy the best. Gut it so that people
won't need tech support. Raise the price. Market
like crazy. They succeed on name recognition.
I wouldn't ever buy anything from Symantec and
haven't for many years. But I did buy each of the
original products above and loved them.


| I used PCtools back then and it was a wonderful tool. I think I also
| used an antivirus from them at some point.
|

   I think they weren't so bad in the early days.
I don't know any details about the company. I just know
their products went downhill. Maybe the company
was sold or restructured? I don't know. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51154

On 10/10/2018 16.26, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> 
> |> And who doesn't know to avoid Symantec?
> |
> | I don't.
> |
> | > They've got a shady history going all the way back
> | > to the 90s.
> |
> | News to me. O:-)
> |
>   Their system tools were increasingly bloated and
> the "doctor" was of no real value.
>   They also have a trdition of buying up top-ed
> software gutting it.
> 
> Quarterdeck Clean Sweep -- Started out as a program
> that could back up virtually any installed program into
> a portable, installable package. Symantec bought it
> and put it into their system works as a useless tool.
> 
> AtGuard -- The first really good Windows firewall. Arguably
> still the best. Symantec licensed it, repackaged it as
> their own firewall, set 700+ programs to be allowed
> through by default, doubled the price, and marketed
> the hell out of it.
> 
> Powerquest disk utilities -- Symantec bought them
> and gutted them, turning Drive Image (a floppy-
> based disk imaging tool) into a useless, .Net-based,
> bloated backup tool. (Not only my opinion. It was
> widely panned in the tech media.)
> 
>   It's a pattern. Buy the best. Gut it so that people
> won't need tech support. Raise the price. Market
> like crazy. They succeed on name recognition.
> I wouldn't ever buy anything from Symantec and
> haven't for many years. But I did buy each of the
> original products above and loved them.


I used them on MsDOS, on Windows they were not that useful and I went
soon to Linux, so I lost contact.

For instance, the PCtools Backup software at that time was wonderful. On
a machine with two floppies it went so fast that I barely had time to
have the next floppy ready and label the used ones. No need to press a
key to say ready, it detected the floppies itself faster, using A: or B:
alternatively.

IIRC, Microsoft bought that tool in a reduced version for MsDOS 6, I
think. Or was it Norton Backup?


As I said, I lost contact, and I had no idea that they declined.


Not the first certificate issuer that goes bad, either.


> | I used PCtools back then and it was a wonderful tool. I think I also
> | used an antivirus from them at some point.
> |
> 
>    I think they weren't so bad in the early days.
> I don't know any details about the company. I just know
> their products went downhill. Maybe the company
> was sold or restructured? I don't know. 
> 
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51151

On 10/10/18 7:05 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 15.28, Mayayana wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>
>> | > If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really care
>> | > about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has it or
>> | > there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
>> | > knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
>> |
>> | No, I do not agree.
>> |
>>
>>    If you bought the certificate directly then why
>> wouldn't you have looked into that? Personally I
>> care about privacy but only regard https as a
>> nice extra. My webhost handles that and I don't
>> know where they're getting the certificate. But
>> if you buy it yourself you should know what you're
>> buying. And who doesn't know to avoid Symantec?
> 
> I don't.
> 
>> They've got a shady history going all the way back
>> to the 90s.
> 
> News to me. O:-)
> 
> I used PCtools back then and it was a wonderful tool. I think I also
> used an antivirus from them at some point.
> 
> Later on I switched to Linux, so most Windows software companies are
> irrelevant to me.
> 
> 
>>    A similar example would be Wordpress denizens.
>> They use Wordpress for hosting because they don't
>> know what they're doing. Then they use script
>> gadgets that WP provides. Then they don't update
>> them because they don't know it matters, so WP
>> ends up being a slum of risky websites.
>>     Should they know what they're doing? Of course.
>> Though WP is partially to blame. If they're going to
>> enable people with no knowledge to create websites
>> then they should also be handling things like updating
>> gadget code when fixes are written.
> 
> Why should they know? If I'm a garage owner and they talk me into paying
> for a web site to announce my garage, it is very possible that I know
> nothing about computers beyond reading my email.
> 
> I know people that own Windows computers with updates disabled for two
> or more years. Possibly the person that installed Windows disabled the
> updates because otherwise they would get phone calls everyday, LOL.
> 
> So yes, what google or firefox do blocking those web sites with those
> certificates is the correct thing to do.
> 
>>      But I think in a lot of cases websites are being
>> created mainly by graphic artists who are not
>> tech-educated. They've just come up with tools
>> to "get around that problem". With all the WYSIWYG
>> tools available, people just don't need to know what
>> they're doing. They're like microwave chefs.
> 
> Exactly.

	I dunno what you mean by a microwave chef?
	Maybe people who buy prepared food and warm it up
in a microwave?

	You can do a lot more than that with a microwave
to produce delicious and edible food.  Just as some artists
with a little knowledge can produce perfectly functional
web sites but don't blame them for not being administrators
of the ISP which should keep the certification up-to-date.

	There are different areas of knowledge and a person
who knows art may not know much about computers and person
who know computers may not know much about art or design.
	That is clearly evident from many otherwise interesting
and informative sites which are painful to view.
	
	bliss

-- 
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51153

On 10/10/2018 17.32, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 10/10/18 7:05 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 10/10/2018 15.28, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> | > If you manage to miss this for a such long time, you don't really
>>> care
>>> | > about anything, you just have a certificate as everyone else has
>>> it or
>>> | > there is a regulation that mandates you to have one without really
>>> | > knowing why. IMHO it's the same as not caring.
>>> |
>>> | No, I do not agree.
>>> |
>>>
>>>    If you bought the certificate directly then why
>>> wouldn't you have looked into that? Personally I
>>> care about privacy but only regard https as a
>>> nice extra. My webhost handles that and I don't
>>> know where they're getting the certificate. But
>>> if you buy it yourself you should know what you're
>>> buying. And who doesn't know to avoid Symantec?
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>>> They've got a shady history going all the way back
>>> to the 90s.
>>
>> News to me. O:-)
>>
>> I used PCtools back then and it was a wonderful tool. I think I also
>> used an antivirus from them at some point.
>>
>> Later on I switched to Linux, so most Windows software companies are
>> irrelevant to me.
>>
>>
>>>    A similar example would be Wordpress denizens.
>>> They use Wordpress for hosting because they don't
>>> know what they're doing. Then they use script
>>> gadgets that WP provides. Then they don't update
>>> them because they don't know it matters, so WP
>>> ends up being a slum of risky websites.
>>>     Should they know what they're doing? Of course.
>>> Though WP is partially to blame. If they're going to
>>> enable people with no knowledge to create websites
>>> then they should also be handling things like updating
>>> gadget code when fixes are written.
>>
>> Why should they know? If I'm a garage owner and they talk me into paying
>> for a web site to announce my garage, it is very possible that I know
>> nothing about computers beyond reading my email.
>>
>> I know people that own Windows computers with updates disabled for two
>> or more years. Possibly the person that installed Windows disabled the
>> updates because otherwise they would get phone calls everyday, LOL.
>>
>> So yes, what google or firefox do blocking those web sites with those
>> certificates is the correct thing to do.
>>
>>>      But I think in a lot of cases websites are being
>>> created mainly by graphic artists who are not
>>> tech-educated. They've just come up with tools
>>> to "get around that problem". With all the WYSIWYG
>>> tools available, people just don't need to know what
>>> they're doing. They're like microwave chefs.
>>
>> Exactly.
> 
>     I dunno what you mean by a microwave chef?
>     Maybe people who buy prepared food and warm it up
> in a microwave?
> 
>     You can do a lot more than that with a microwave
> to produce delicious and edible food.  Just as some artists
> with a little knowledge can produce perfectly functional
> web sites but don't blame them for not being administrators
> of the ISP which should keep the certification up-to-date.
> 
>     There are different areas of knowledge and a person
> who knows art may not know much about computers and person
> who know computers may not know much about art or design.
>     That is clearly evident from many otherwise interesting
> and informative sites which are painful to view.

Yes, entirely possible.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web