366 karma · joined December 6, 2010
ZGFuQGRhbndvbGZmLnNl
meet.hn/city/se-Linköping
EDIT: Now I remember my use case.
My email is actually myname+randomstring+website@otherdomain.com, and so I want to sign in with the same randomstring every time. Previously when signing in to Persona with my Gmail email address it would suggest all alternatives, and I'd choose the appropriate one. Now it logs in with Gmail directly instead.
Of course, this is such an edge case that it's probably not worth doing anything about. And I can simply sign into Persona with myname@otherdomain.com for the previous functionality.
And some things, like using myname+website@gmail.com doesn't work at all.
Enabling perfect forward secrecy is only useful if we also
eliminate the threat of traffic analysis of HTTPS, which
can be used to detect a user’s browsing activity, even
when using HTTPS.2) Globals with 'x = 1' throws an error when run in strict mode.
3) They couldn't change the meaning of 'var', but they introduced 'let' which does just that - applies to a block rather than the whole function.
Why? Wouldn't you achieve the same thing by calling the commit fucking stupid? Why resort to personal attacks?
Try going to http://www.hevanet.com/acorbin/xul/top.xul in Firefox: "This page uses an unsupported technology that is no longer available by default in Firefox"
I'd support three stages: 1) no encryption, 2) some/partial encryption, 3) "perfect" encryption.
For the partial encryption, the browser would provide an explanation of exactly how it could be compromised. For the case where the encrypted version does not have perfect forward secrecy, it could explain that if the server is compromised, this session can also be decrypted.
I don't think browsers should cover the banks' asses here.
Edit (since I can't reply deeper): I thought you were being sarcastic since I consider a gradient to be a really horrible idea. I'd want something where the browser tells me something. I don't want to wonder whether the new browser version changed the gradients slightly or a site improved its encryption strategy. Clear symbols and language is a must.
My conclusion is that, though I like the idea of free buses, there should at least be a token fee to discourage people taking a ride for the roof.
If I understood correctly sha1(sha1(secret) + message) is not safe, because from that hash you can calculate sha1(sha1(secret) + message + ANYTHING)
That said, maybe there'd be an issue if you enter personally identifiable information as a query. But who does that?
Additionally, to me it seems very possible that this is part of the smear that Snowden will have to endure, the point of this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5868853.
How is the link 1.(9+x).y<>2.x.y clearer than 1.(10+x).y<>2.x.y?