Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenizerrr | Hacker News Reader

All of that is bad, none of it is a security issue. Privacy, sure. But not security. And the article specifically shows that Google is planning to mark example.org as insecure. Which it's not.

View on HN

But it quite literally is:

    insecure (adj.)
    (of a thing) not firm or fixed; liable to give way or break.
    not sufficiently protected; easily broken into.

A webpage loaded over HTTP is easy to tamper with. Let me give you an example of traffic over HTTP that is secure -- apt repositories; because you're only retrieving payloads protected by PGP, so the actual payload is firm, fixed, and not easily broken into.

How else do you define insecure? Have I misunderstood the definition?

I define insecure as a machine/user getting compromised. Malware, phishing and the like.

Anyway, your example is a good one as to why it's weird for Chrome to label these things as insecure.

Insecure can't be used as a drop-in replacement for compromised though; Being insecure will get you compromised. One distinct thing might lead to another distinct thing

> I define insecure as a machine/user getting compromised

So a bank using plaintext HTTP doesn't qualify an insecure?

Integrity is one of the components of security.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com