News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by mrb on Friday July 22, 2016 @11:43PM (#12148239)
We should also give credit to HTTP/2 (available only through HTTPS). People want the performance increase of HTTP/2 so they are forced to deploy HTTPS.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by vertex-four on Saturday July 23, 2016 @06:43AM (#12149086)
I really doubt that - support for HTTP/2 is generally still in its infancy, and web servers supporting it haven't made it into LTS releases of most distros yet.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by gnur on Saturday July 23, 2016 @08:22AM (#12149274)
On a talk from Daniel Stenberg earlier this year he told that over 60% of the clients already support HTTP/2. So there is a real incentive to start supporting it as it nearly always is faster and costs less connections for the server.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by rictic on Saturday July 23, 2016 @12:09PM (#12149899)
Eyeballing the stats at http://caniuse.com/#search=http2 I think it's more like 85% of clients support it.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by nileshtrivedi on Saturday July 23, 2016 @02:15PM (#12150404)
I installed HTTP/2 indicator extension for my browser and I am very surprised to see how many sites are already using HTTP/2. It's easily close to a third of the sites I use frequently.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by vertex-four on Saturday July 23, 2016 @02:45PM (#12150523)
I wonder if those are mostly sites using Cloudflare and similar, which supports HTTP/2 regardless of the upstream server's support.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by merb on Saturday July 23, 2016 @03:27AM (#12148710)
it's not only available through https. browser only allow http/2 over TLS thats something different. there is a insecure http/2 version just no browser implements it.
Re:HTTPS Adoption doubled this year by pfg on Saturday July 23, 2016 @05:45AM (#12148958)
I think that's pretty much the exact definition of "available" in this context. If it just exists in a RFC somewhere, I wouldn't call it "available".