▲ 15 ▼ the hacker's dictionary (www.hackersdictionary.com) submitted 3 years ago by sizeoftheuniverse@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev 7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] bia@programming.dev 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Hmmm, hosting a hacker post without an https url... 🤨 permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ono@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Hmmm, hosting a hacker post without an https url… Given that the Jargon File / Hacker's Dictionary predates https by at least 20 years and is not remotely sensitive information, I don't think it's a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_file http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/ P.S. This entry in particular might be informative: http://www.hackersdictionary.com/html/entry/hacker.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bia@programming.dev 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe I'm wrong, but using http could create a MITM vulnerability. And for me this issue is my browser is setup to block http URLs. It's just not a good look. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hexarei@programming.dev 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe I'm wrong, You are. The only way it "creates a MITM vuln" is if you're entering sensitive information into the site, which you're not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] noli@programming.dev 2 points 3 years ago It does create a MITM vulnerability, the question is just whether it matters or not. With HTTPS a third party will only know which url you're accessing. With HTTP they can see exactly what data is transferred and can modify that data at will. So adding HTTPS here accomplishes: hiding which exact page of the hacker's dictionary you're accessing hiding the exact contents of the page ensuring that this page doesn't get modified in transit None of these are really an issue, so using http in this situation is fine. In general though, I'd consider not having HTTPS as a bug for most sites, unless you're extremely resource constrained on either side of the connection and you think carefully about the security and privacy implications permalink fedilink source parent [–] foxmoss@programming.dev 0 points 3 years ago get with the times, https is not 1337 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ono@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Hmmm, hosting a hacker post without an https url… Given that the Jargon File / Hacker's Dictionary predates https by at least 20 years and is not remotely sensitive information, I don't think it's a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_file http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/ P.S. This entry in particular might be informative: http://www.hackersdictionary.com/html/entry/hacker.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bia@programming.dev 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe I'm wrong, but using http could create a MITM vulnerability. And for me this issue is my browser is setup to block http URLs. It's just not a good look. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hexarei@programming.dev 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe I'm wrong, You are. The only way it "creates a MITM vuln" is if you're entering sensitive information into the site, which you're not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] noli@programming.dev 2 points 3 years ago It does create a MITM vulnerability, the question is just whether it matters or not. With HTTPS a third party will only know which url you're accessing. With HTTP they can see exactly what data is transferred and can modify that data at will. So adding HTTPS here accomplishes: hiding which exact page of the hacker's dictionary you're accessing hiding the exact contents of the page ensuring that this page doesn't get modified in transit None of these are really an issue, so using http in this situation is fine. In general though, I'd consider not having HTTPS as a bug for most sites, unless you're extremely resource constrained on either side of the connection and you think carefully about the security and privacy implications permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bia@programming.dev 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe I'm wrong, but using http could create a MITM vulnerability. And for me this issue is my browser is setup to block http URLs. It's just not a good look. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hexarei@programming.dev 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe I'm wrong, You are. The only way it "creates a MITM vuln" is if you're entering sensitive information into the site, which you're not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] noli@programming.dev 2 points 3 years ago It does create a MITM vulnerability, the question is just whether it matters or not. With HTTPS a third party will only know which url you're accessing. With HTTP they can see exactly what data is transferred and can modify that data at will. So adding HTTPS here accomplishes: hiding which exact page of the hacker's dictionary you're accessing hiding the exact contents of the page ensuring that this page doesn't get modified in transit None of these are really an issue, so using http in this situation is fine. In general though, I'd consider not having HTTPS as a bug for most sites, unless you're extremely resource constrained on either side of the connection and you think carefully about the security and privacy implications permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe I'm wrong, You are. The only way it "creates a MITM vuln" is if you're entering sensitive information into the site, which you're not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] noli@programming.dev 2 points 3 years ago It does create a MITM vulnerability, the question is just whether it matters or not. With HTTPS a third party will only know which url you're accessing. With HTTP they can see exactly what data is transferred and can modify that data at will. So adding HTTPS here accomplishes: hiding which exact page of the hacker's dictionary you're accessing hiding the exact contents of the page ensuring that this page doesn't get modified in transit None of these are really an issue, so using http in this situation is fine. In general though, I'd consider not having HTTPS as a bug for most sites, unless you're extremely resource constrained on either side of the connection and you think carefully about the security and privacy implications permalink fedilink source parent
[–] noli@programming.dev 2 points 3 years ago It does create a MITM vulnerability, the question is just whether it matters or not. With HTTPS a third party will only know which url you're accessing. With HTTP they can see exactly what data is transferred and can modify that data at will. So adding HTTPS here accomplishes: hiding which exact page of the hacker's dictionary you're accessing hiding the exact contents of the page ensuring that this page doesn't get modified in transit None of these are really an issue, so using http in this situation is fine. In general though, I'd consider not having HTTPS as a bug for most sites, unless you're extremely resource constrained on either side of the connection and you think carefully about the security and privacy implications permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foxmoss@programming.dev 0 points 3 years ago get with the times, https is not 1337 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RidgeRoad@midwest.social 1 point 3 years ago Recommend also the seminal TMRC dictionary for several terms absent here, plus some memorably elegant definitions: Kludge: A crock that works. Crock: A kludge that doesn't work. Same again true of Peter Samson's original 1959 and 1960 editions. permalink fedilink source
all 7 comments