Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:16:51 +1300 From: Pedro Worcel <pedro@...cel.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: OT: HTTPS for openwall.info? Yeah I don't think it will help much, it'll just be a bit annoying. E.g. no mitm, etc. It would be great to see HTTPs everywhere =) 2013/3/12 Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:15:48AM +1300, Pedro Worcel wrote: > > > The main reason I like it is because I am behind a restrictive firewall > > (at > > > work), so while I don't understand how bad it is for a person in a > > country > > > with a great firewall, I know it is a major pain in the ass for censors > > if > > > websites use https only. (e.g. with github/china ordeal) > > > I use several proxies and filtering products, a lot of filtering done at > the domain level, not the protocol. The greatfirewall of china uses this > method and many others, most filters I've encountered can use DNS and or > protocols. Port 443 hardly get's a pass just because it's 443 in my > experience with repressive regimes. > > > Well, that sort of reasoning applies to all websites, not just the wiki. > > We'd need HTTPS for the main Openwall website as well, then. Yes, this > > makes sense. > > > It doesn't from a censorship perspective, if you ask me. None of this is to > say I don't support the use of HTTPS for any website, esp openwall, I'd > love to see HTTPS. > -rich > -- GPG: http://is.gd/droope <http://is.gd/signature_>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.