Re:Chrome 68 Released: HTTP Sites Marked as “Not Secure”
by stephengillie on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @06:30AM
(#17608199)
Removing the 4th option, do nothing, is the issue here. Action is being forced that has no impact to GP.
Re:Chrome 68 Released: HTTP Sites Marked as “Not Secure”
by tialaramex on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @11:36AM
(#17610067)
Your "Fourth option" is still there, but this universe has time's arrow, so you get the second outcome I described.
Because of time's arrow, it's mistake to assume that if you do nothing then nothing will happen, you're literally up against the Laws of Thermodynamics. The only people who think you might win that fight are crackpots building perpetual motion machines.
1. All your systems are provisioned to trust your CA, which can have any rules you like. This counts as "Secure". Almost certainly your rules are garbage, but I don't use your systems or trust your CA so I don't care
2. Your local systems which you refuse to be transparent about are marked "Not Secure" because there's no reason for a client to have any confidence in their identity
3. You offer transparency so that everyone (e.g. me) can see that there aren't any shenanigans with the global public systems we all trust.
The fact that you don't like any of these options doesn't mean there are no options, just that you didn't like them.