|
|
Posted by rf on 09/21/05 06:30
JDS wrote:
> > Ah yes, I remember now, the paranoia bit. I largely ignored it then.
>
> So if I point out his misunderstanding of the how and why behind https, he
> will not get it? 'cause I was about to tell him the flaws in his thinking
> on the issue.
Correct. Absolutely everybody advised him against it during the original
discussion. Everybodys advice was dismissed.
It appears that the pages *must* be served encrypted so some nasty third
party hacker will not be able to change them during their travels from the
server to the client. The viewer *must* be secure in the knowledge that the
information on the page being viewed *is* in fact the same information that
the author placed on the server.
The overheads HTTPS incurs are not, apparently, an issue.
Cheers
Richard.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|