News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by tokenizerrr on Thursday February 08, 2018 @03:00PM (#16335109)
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.
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by ancarda on Thursday February 08, 2018 @03:12PM (#16335194)
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?

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by tokenizerrr on Thursday February 08, 2018 @03:54PM (#16335507)
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.

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by ancarda on Thursday February 08, 2018 @03:58PM (#16335546)
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
Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by MaxBarraclough on Friday February 09, 2018 @05:03AM (#16339112)
> I define insecure as a machine/user getting compromised

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

Re:Chrome 68 will mark all HTTP sites as “not secure” by UncleMeat on Thursday February 08, 2018 @05:08PM (#16336035)
Integrity is one of the components of security.