debiman doesn't post here any more, he can't stand to be on the same boards as mesickpig wrote:Please edit your post
He's active over at linuxquestions.org if you want to go and bother him there. Tell him HoaS says [redacted].
debiman doesn't post here any more, he can't stand to be on the same boards as mesickpig wrote:Please edit your post
sickpig wrote:
Please edit your post to capitalize Australia. i dont care about the rest of your spellings, grammar or sentence construction but when it comes to nations kindly bear some respect. Thanks.
ur reply has been edited or is altogether new. the earlier one entitled repercussions which Karma will ensure. cheers!theblueplll wrote:sickpig wrote:
Please edit your post to capitalize Australia. i dont care about the rest of your spellings, grammar or sentence construction but when it comes to nations kindly bear some respect. Thanks.
It actually has nothing to do with respect.
It's proper english to capitalize the first letter to the name of a country.
"Nothing" is not the word one would describe something encrypting the traffic between end-used and web service. False sense of security regarding this topic comes from the lack of knowledge, i.e. understanding what is protected and what is not.cuckooflew wrote:Honestly , I do not see why people think https is so important, it does nothing to keep your system secure
This is dumb. Like saying "you can always use sandals with socks if you can't use hiking boots". As if people were using the internet just because you can't use SSL without it.cuckooflew wrote:, if https is so important, there is all ways sites like FaceBook, that use it.
This is also dumb. Being suspicious is in many cases warranted, but in this case it seems that you don't have a clear understanding how SSL works and why it is used. Google does many crappy things, but this is not one of them. At least in real world. You may hold up to any conspiracy BS you want in your own imaginary hellhole.cuckooflew wrote: That leads to something else that has all ways been suspicious to me, Why does Google, promote and try to force everyone to use ssl certificates and https ? Any way, enjoy the vacation.
And what information would that be then? This is a public forum, all of the posts are visible even to non-members.kopper wrote:at least users should be able to trust that information they give to the service is handled with appropriate care
Usernames and passwords.Head_on_a_Stick wrote:And what information would that be then? This is a public forum, all of the posts are visible even to non-members.kopper wrote:at least users should be able to trust that information they give to the service is handled with appropriate care
No, I'm not, and that's not the point, you're deflecting. By that logic, you're basically saying it's perfectly ok for people to be allowed to see usernames and passwords being sent to this website in an unencrypted form. You're basically admitting that this website has weak security, but it's acceptable because we shouldn't be reusing passwords anyway.Head_on_a_Stick wrote:So you're using the same password everywhere? That's not wise.
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:And what information would that be then? This is a public forum, all of the posts are visible even to non-members.
So you (deliberately?) miss the point to share assumptions on other users' behavior you have no knowledge about? Really builds your case.Head_on_a_Stick wrote:So you're using the same password everywhere? That's not wise.
Yes.Gerowen wrote:you're basically saying it's perfectly ok for people to be allowed to see usernames and passwords being sent to this website in an unencrypted form.
Correct.Gerowen wrote:You're basically admitting that this website has weak security, but it's acceptable because we shouldn't be reusing passwords anyway.
What does your job have to do with the discussion at hand? You don't see me talking about getting free (to me anyway) body armor and ammo in Iraq because it doesn't have jack to do with what we're talking about here. Nice, not-so-low key humble brag though I guess.Head_on_a_Stick wrote:Yes.Gerowen wrote:you're basically saying it's perfectly ok for people to be allowed to see usernames and passwords being sent to this website in an unencrypted form.
Correct.Gerowen wrote:You're basically admitting that this website has weak security, but it's acceptable because we shouldn't be reusing passwords anyway.
My $DAY_JOB is sufficiently dangerous that body armour is considered a legitimate tax-deductible expense so perhaps my perception of risk is skewed but I am very happy with the provisions of these boards.
The electrons aren't free and this site isn't under the aegis of debian.org so the orange folks have my gratitude for this playground
I sure can't see any ones passwords,but sounds interesting, maybe you could explain how that is possible, and show some passwords you have seen, ? You probably can't. because you can not see other peoples passwords, if you can , prove it.By that logic, you're basically saying it's perfectly ok for people to be allowed to see usernames and passwords being sent to this website in an unencrypted form.
But you just had to brag about that, and now we all do see it.You don't see me talking about getting free (to me anyway) body armor and ammo in Iraq because it doesn't have jack to do with what we're talking about here. Nice, not-so-low key humble brag though I guess.