ael wrote on 15/07/18 07:30:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:20:46PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:09:37AM +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <ren...@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> wrote:
If the developpers are worried about users wandering into unsafe sites,
I would understand a warning, but why the complete blockage ?
While not directly addressing your problem, it's a symptom of the "nothing
old exists, all (would be) legacy stuff gets replaced by 3 years old, we
don't care" approach from several quarters.
This might not be relevant, but I have a "legacy" switch/router.
It does not have wifi, so there are no free firmwares to use.
The problem with connecting securely, as I recall is that the
manufacturer had/has several brands, and the certificate had a
mismatch there. When I used to use firefox, it allowed me to
specify a "security" exception, and then I could connect.
Since the HTTPS certification principle is based on domain names, it's
hard to understand in general how routers would be able to hold such
certificates (installed by vendors), and if they could, what value that
would have in terms of security.
Nowadays, I usually use Palemoon (I know that some people here object to
the licence conditions, so let's not go there now). That also allows
me to declare an exception and connect.
[me too]
[snip]
Ralph.
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
