[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPS+U99Yzw5DSOvEkOfZvin+pdEN=ghvFd3hZYLow3p+=Wjqxg@mail.gmail.com>
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.
