News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS certificates. Parent comment

Re:Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS c... by brian-bk on Sunday June 28, 2020 @02:18PM (#23670849)
There's no cert because there's no need for one in the first place. Mentioning that is pretty silly - it's obvious that there's nothing wrong with a static site with now cert, and no one is arguing against that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS c... by riffic on Sunday June 28, 2020 @04:17PM (#23671708)
> no need for one in the first place ... it's obvious that there's nothing wrong with a static site with no cert

Oh yes, there is.

https://doesmysiteneedhttps.com

> YES

> Your site needs HTTPS.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS c... by maxmalysh on Sunday June 28, 2020 @02:27PM (#23670918)
> there's nothing wrong with a static site with no cert

Not really. Google says "switch to HTTPS or lose ranking":

https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/08/https-as-ranking-s...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chromium and Mozilla to enforce 1 year validity for TLS c... by brian-bk on Sunday June 28, 2020 @02:35PM (#23670991)
Good to note. But I think you're distracting from the article's talking point.

I disagree with "switch to HTTPS or lose ranking", but that's an HTTP vs. HTTPS issue with Google's search ranking, not about Chromium or Mozilla. This article is about Chromium & Mozilla making stricter rules for HTTPS certificates. That's not a bad thing, to hold HTTPS sites to a better standard.

[ Parent | on HN ]