Wikipedia to Drop Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) Support on October 17 - Use Firefox 52 ESR

[jaclaz]

11 hours ago, dencorso said:

I've Always understood the "two blank lines" as being the same as "CR;LF;CR;LF".

Yep , and that is a SINGLE "blank line", instead, only a different way to call the same thing.

jaclaz

[dencorso]

You mean, just like "risk of life" = "risk of death"?

[j7n]

I don't see why Wikipedia needs encryption it all, let alone to insist on strong one. It is a public knowledge base, not a bank. My understanding or security is superficial, but the only risk I can imagine is where the password of a Wiki account gets obtained and used elsewhere. A few years ago Wiki only required SSL during log in to secure against this. Why would they limit read-only access to the site?

 

Practically Internet Explorer 8 has long been too slow to browse most modern websites with complex, bloated layout, secure or not.
 

[Sampei.Nihira]

http://www.enhanceie.com/ietoys/uapick.asp

[mixit]

On 9/15/2017 at 7:36 AM, dencorso said:

It's possible and harmless to spoof IE8 as IE9. However, pretending to be IE10 or, worse, IE11 leads to cripled funcionality.

1 hour ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

http://www.enhanceie.com/ietoys/uapick.asp

Simply spoofing the user agent won't work in this case, because (at least right now) it doesn't look like they're blocking IE8 based on its UA, they really seem to be doing it by the encryption method, so the POSReady AES update is still needed.

When I tested with IE8 earlier, I was getting the warning page every few page loads when i disabled AES128-SHA and left only 3DES, whereas I couldn't get it to appear at all when I disabled 3DES and re-enabled AES128-SHA. I also tried it with a spoofed IE9 UA just now and it made no difference, the warning page still appeared periodically without AES128-SHA.

(I did see @dencorso suggesting UA spoofing earlier, but the way that whole thing got sidetracked into a .reg file line endings discussion, its point had disappeared from my mind by the time I got to running my initial tests.)

 

 

[tomasz86]

On 9/17/2017 at 9:23 AM, j7n said:

I don't see why Wikipedia needs encryption it all, let alone to insist on strong one. It is a public knowledge base, not a bank. My understanding or security is superficial, but the only risk I can imagine is where the password of a Wiki account gets obtained and used elsewhere. A few years ago Wiki only required SSL during log in to secure against this. Why would they limit read-only access to the site?

Practically Internet Explorer 8 has long been too slow to browse most modern websites with complex, bloated layout, secure or not.

There is a trend to go HTTPS everywhere, regardless of whether the particular site actually needs it.

I have mixed feelings about it. Improved security is a good thing, but there are disadvantages too. Lower compatibility with browsers is one of them. HTTPS websites also load slower, especially on mobile connections (test yourself at https://httpvshttps.com).

Edited September 18, 2017 by tomasz86