"Patchy security"? What are you on about?
Re:Nginx doesn't suck at SSL after all
by burgerbrain on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @11:08PM
(#2761597)
I'm refering to the portion of the comment I was responding to: "These "financial secrets" are emailed in the clear after every transaction"
The implication being that since they were sending the information in the clear in a separate part of their system, that they were wrong in configuring their https site as they did. I object to that conclusion.
Ah. Patchy works there. I'm sorry about that. Having a hairtrigger day.
Re:Nginx doesn't suck at SSL after all
by burgerbrain on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @11:19PM
(#2761619)
No worries!
Re:Nginx doesn't suck at SSL after all
by beachaccount on Thursday July 14, 2011 @08:32AM
(#2762714)
No, that indicates that these were not actually financian secrets, hence the quotes.
Re:Nginx doesn't suck at SSL after all
by burgerbrain on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:18PM
(#2763931)
I'm going to go ahead and give the developers of the particular site the benefit of the doubt and not you, if you don't mind.
Furthermore, one particular site using https in a particular mode when they don't need to use https at all is still not a logical argument against other sites using https with those ciphers.
Edit: beachaccount: Financial institutions not using DHE is not a logically sound counter to "There's nothing wrong with using DHE algorithms, particularly if you're going to be transferring financial secrets around." While those institutions may chose not to, there is nothing wrong with others choosing otherwise. Additionally, patchy security on the part of one operator certainly is not a logically sound argument against this.
Furthermore, in the future, actually reply to a post in order to reply to a post. Not doing so unnecessarily confuses the flow of conversations (posts are not scarce resources).