News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Netgear Signed TLS Cert Private Key Disclosure. Parent comment

Re:Netgear Signed TLS Cert Private Key Disclosure by moviuro on Monday January 20, 2020 @04:47AM (#22097686)
Number 2: already dealt with:

  * .test
  * .example
  * .invalid
  * .localhost
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Netgear Signed TLS Cert Private Key Disclosure by zonidjan on Monday January 20, 2020 @08:40AM (#22098689)
What? No. While those are meant to be reserved, nothing stops you from configuring your resolver to answer for them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Netgear Signed TLS Cert Private Key Disclosure by mschuster91 on Monday January 20, 2020 @02:48PM (#22101581)
Yes, but users will not be happy if they see ".example" on the URL bar. And you can't get a trusted cert for them either.

Not confusing users is why the fiasco with the https certificate problem here was initially created. And to be honest I do not have any idea how all needs (users have a trusted HTTPS certificate, a domain name and no "insecure" oe other warnings in the browser, while hackers don't get access to the certificate, and all of it works without internet uplink) can be met...

[ Parent | on HN ]