shif

Can't they fine the strawberrynet blatant disregard for privacy?, It's based on the UK, you can access personal information of anyone registered in the site with only their email address and they say It's not a big deal.

But you can, a simple reverse proxy can let the same port be used for multiple servers and pick based on hostname or query (for http).

reverse proxies like nginx also have plain tcp support so it allows you to easily run several services

That's the blogger platform

What if one of the people that has part of the key gets mad and leaves without sharing it?

An ex admin would probably have access to the physical backups too, this could have been done before he left the company.

The government could force pc manufacturers to deploy a root CA that they control and then do a MITM proxy to read everything the user is doing, they could also redirect wikipedia domain to another domain that just acts as a reverse proxy and deploy a legit cert on that other site

It's sophisticated because of it's simplicity and effectiveness.

It's headless so most likely yes.

HTTPS isn't bulletproof either, the argument could still be made with TLS

chrome://net-internals/#hsts

doesn't seem to show anything for the domain

That's regressive as fuck, it's like saying that cars will no longer be allowed, only horse carriages

Ctrl + Shift + J

in chrome

You should see the other companies that hold /8's apple for example owns 17.0.0.0/8 and barely uses any of their 16 million addresses

I wonder how the domain displays on email clients like gmail and outlook, this is the scariest part, most people will just look at the domain and think it's a valid mail and follow the instructions of that mail, it could be catastrophic for companies, the ubiquity $40 million fiasco comes to mind.