There's a published paper about it too:
http://www.adambarth.com/papers/2008/jackson-barth.pdf
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robert Sesek <rse...@chromium.org> wrote:
> It clears the list of hosts in StrictTransportSecurityState:
>
> // StrictTransportSecurityState
> //
> // Tracks which hosts have enabled StrictTransportSecurityState. After a
> host
> // enables StrictTransportSecurityState, then we refuse to talk to the host
> // over HTTP, treat all certificate errors as fatal, and refuse to load any
> // mixed content.
> //
>
> rsesek / @chromium.org
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Erik Kay <erik...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> For those of us who are curious, could someone explain what this does?
>>
>> Erik
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Finnur Thorarinsson
>> <fin...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > +1 to what Peter is saying.
>> > Like Brett, I have no clue what this checkbox means and think it
>> > shouldn't
>> > have been added.
>> > However, the question I have... is it appropriate to tuck this in with
>> > something like deleting the history (like we do with last session,
>> > recently
>> > closed tabs, autogenerated keywords, etc)?
>> > It is hard for me to evaluate that, not knowing what this does... :)
>> > -F
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 16:09, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Brett Wilson <bre...@chromium.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Adam Langley <a...@chromium.org>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Ben Goodger (Google)
>> >> >>> <b...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>> Whoever added this UI, please remove it before I have to when I
>> >> >>>> get
>> >> >>>> back next week.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Very well, reverting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why not #ifdef around it? I fear if you revert you'll never check
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> in again.
>> >> >
>> >> > If that happens, it's the best possible argument that this is a silly
>> >> > thing to add.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's just the argument that it's not the sort of thing people are
>> >> willing to expend the energy to argue about. With this sort of
>> >> response I'd be tempted to just give up on the patch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
