News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps.

Re:Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less s... by Aldipower on Saturday November 21, 2020 @05:51PM (#25173353)
This is a campaign against Lynx!

> The browser must have JavaScript enabled.

> You must confirm that your browser does not contain any of the following: > * Text-based browsers

Once upon a time the internet was TCP with things like FTP, Email, Newsgroups, IRC and yes also HTTP (aka WWW).

Now, the internet seems to be Google, Apple, Facebook aaand SEO.

Hey, wait! There is a small shiny place!! Hackernews! :)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less s... by forgotmypw17 on Sunday November 22, 2020 @01:34AM (#25175462)
My site still works in Lynx, nojs, and Netscape.

Google is leaving the web behind, doing its own thing.

That is fine.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less s... by Enginerrrd on Saturday November 21, 2020 @06:26PM (#25173513)
Man, that's deeply aggravating.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less s... by gitweb on Saturday November 21, 2020 @06:48PM (#25173608)
This is regarding man-in-the-middle attacks. There is not attack on Lynx. Many sites do not functionin without JavaScript. Sad, but that's the way it is.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less s... by kiwidrew on Saturday November 21, 2020 @07:51PM (#25173900)
How can a prohibition on "text-based browsers" have anything to do with MitM attacks? The browser's chosen rendering method (text or GUI) is irrelevant.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less s... by trickstra on Sunday November 22, 2020 @02:08AM (#25175607)
Google is actually misrepresenting the danger in their blogpost, because they write "One form of phishing, known as man-in-the-middle,..." - this statement is clearly false because MITM is not phishing. Not in any stretch of the definition. So who knows what is the real justification.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less s... by kilburn on Sunday November 22, 2020 @02:16PM (#25180155)
I agree that the post is not very well written, but if you are a bit generous you can read them saying "phishing sites are doing MITM attacks that we have a very hard time distinguishing from CEF logins, so we are axing CEF logins altogether".

I'm appalled of the general direction Google is pushing the web to (an AD haven), but some of their points make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]