Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Not exactly. The fat warning is there so that you don't get a false sense of security by seeing a little lock.

But then again, we're now moving to a "if its self signed, you can't access the site, you can't bypass the check even".

I wonder how much verisign pays some of us.




we're now moving to a "if its self signed, you can't access the site, you can't bypass the check even".

wait wait wait what?

I am currently in a space where we have to deal with self-signed certificates all the time. I fully accept that people like me will have to deal with more hassles from this so that people don't get their paypal accounts hijacked as easily. But I've yet to find out that I simply cannot connect to a site with a self-signed certificate.


Have a look at http://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/07/19/hope9talk.html for a glimpse of the future:)


Verisign did not pay Mozilla to make it harder to click through the broken certificate warning.


Do you mean that you can't bypass the certificate warning anymore in Firefox? (or will not in the near future)

If that is so, what is your reasoning behind it?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: