Comment by ryanisnan

5 days ago

[flagged]

Why? What benefit would https provide over http when visiting a pure information (and I'm guessing statically generated) website?

  • If you are on a public network without using a VPN you open yourself up to MITM to inject something malicious

    • Sure, but that's ultimately a pretty unlikely attack vector. An attacker still needs to exploit some unknown vulnerability of your web browser in order to get something malicious going.

      I basically expect that sort of attack to only be pulled off by a state actor or by a black hat convention for the lolz.

      2 replies →

  • It is a valid thing to point out, when implementing https on gkh's site would take all of 15 minutes to set up (let's encrypt or cloudflare or whatever you wish).

    Things should be https by default these days. There's zero downside anymore.

  • Confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity :)

    • > Confidentiality

      Reading a blog post about linux security? Do you actually care if the NSA/FBI/CIA/FDA/USDA or anyone else knows you read this particular blog post?

      I could understand this argument if we were talking about a social media site, or something more substantial. But a blog post?

      > authenticity

      It's a linux security blog post. While it's technically possible for a MITM to get in between an inject false information... about linux security? Is that really a real threat?

      > integrity

      Maybe a real problem, assuming a malicious MITM is trying to target you. But, I suspect, there are other avenues that'd be more fruitful in that case. Just hoping that someone would visit an http site seems like a far fetched concern.