Ok, glad to hear that. BR, Artur.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Frank Lanitz <fr...@frank.uvena.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 25.10.2015 um 14:41 schrieb Arthur Peka: > > In my understanding "invalid" includes "signed by untrusted authority". > > I'm no security expert, and for me browser reporting an invalid > > certificate is a red flag - I'll have a hard time figuring out > > that cacert.org <http://cacert.org> are in fact the "good guys". I > > believe, this can also turn away some contributors, who will think the > > page is abandoned/compromised, without looking into much details. > > I'm aware of this and we dicussed it several times at some of our > mailinglists. Untrusted != invalid. Unfortunately people don't want to > understand this so browser developers decided to send in every case "OMG > we are gonna die"-error warnings and hiding the option "I know what I'm > doing". It's even getting hard and herder to ack a selfsigned > certificate from release of release of browser. This is bad. Now in > default it's easier to trust some company might forced by some > gouverment or whoever (stock owners maybe) to sign a not valid > certificate than to trust your very own self created certificate e.g. > for your personal intranet. But this is another topic and off topic here. > > > As for let's encrypt - they reported several days ago that they are > > trusted by major browsers > > - https://letsencrypt.org/2015/10/19/lets-encrypt-is-trusted.html. Check > > https://helloworld.letsencrypt.org/ - it's trusted. > > At least I'm aware of this and as Enrico mentioned we will go into > process of update maybe soon. this was the big step I was referring to. > > So tl;dr: There will be an update on this kind of soonish. > > Cheers, > Frank > >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel