Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | samuelb's comments login

It is still not safe. The new owner is using Cloudflare as a CDN to appear more legitimate, but the responses are still fully controlled by the malicious backend. This has been the case since the end of February.


You can sort the comments by Question & Answer to have not only the answer https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/590wi9/i_am_elon_mu...


Ah nice, didn't know that!


In case you can't access their website

Dear Valued GlobalSign Customer,

As most of you are aware, we are experiencing an internal process issue (details below) that is impacting your business. While we have identified the root-cause, we deeply apologize for the problems this is causing you and wanted to ensure you that we are actively resolving the issue.

GlobalSign manages several root certificates and for compatibility and browser ubiquity reasons provides several cross-certificates between those roots to maximize the effectiveness across a variety of platforms. As part of a planned exercise to remove some of those links, a cross-certificate linking two roots together was revoked. CRL responses had been operational for 1 week, however an unexpected consequence of providing OCSP responses became apparent this morning, in that some browsers incorrectly inferred that the cross-signed root had revoked intermediates, which was not the case.

GlobalSign has since removed the cross-certificate from the OCSP database and cleared all caches. However, the global nature of CDNs and effectiveness of caching continued to push some of those responses out as far as end users. End users cannot always easily clear their caches, either through lack of knowledge or lack of permission. New users (visitors) are not affected as they will now receive good responses.

The problem will correct itself in 4 days as the cached responses expire, which we know is not ideal. However, in the meantime, GlobalSign will be providing an alternative issuing CA for customers to use instead, issued by a different root which was not affected by the cross that was revoked, but offering the same ubiquity and does not require to reissue the certificate itself.

We are currently working on the detailed instructions to help you resolve the issue and will communicate those instruction to you shortly.

Thank you for your patience.

Lila Kee Chief Product Officer GMO GlobalSign

US +1 603-570-7060 | UK +44 1622 766 766 | EU +32 16 89 1900 www.globalsign.com/en


One thing that shocks me about this is the browser responses. Opera would not allow me to visit the sites affected, citing a revoked cert and possible attack. While I appreciate the warning, it was odd to see the site fully disabled.

Safari on the other hand silently failed the https auth and served the page regardless. Concerning behavior for a revoked cert.


That might depend on the specific Safari version. I am using Safari 10 on macOS Sierra, and it would not allow me to access any site using one of the affected certs: instead it would just serve an error page.


I think that was more because of the site, not the certificate - the grey failure page would appear for sites that use HSTS[0]. If the site didn't use HSTS or if you visited it for the first time, you'd get an ordinary certificate error alert.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSTS


It baffles me why do all browsers pretend that https with an untrusted certificate is worse than plain http.


I think because with plain http there should be no illusion of security.


Do you mean "we expect people not to have an illusion of security" or "we would want people not to have an illusion of security"?

I posit that this actually creates an illusion that http is better than "insecure" https.


Possibly your Safari had already cached an 'ok' result for the intermediate?


The os already has an ocsp cache.


The cert wasn't revoked though, just the cross signed intermediate.


It's only available in US, here is the direct link for others countries: https://www.bing.com/widget/t/speedtest The max speed I could get was 120Mbps down / 130Mbps up (from Switzerland)


That's it! End of speedtest.net


The margins are a bit too big (Chrome, Galaxy S6) http://i.imgur.com/MYTVihG.jpg


I get similar margins on an iPhone 4s running iOS 7. It's quite a bit of wasted space - maybe 15-20% of total screen width.

Other than that, it's a big improvement.


Download iOS 8 for every device. (I'm downloading at 4MB/s) http://i.trackr.fr/tutoriel-telecharger-et-installer-ios-80-...



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: