[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Midori for Squeeze

In gmane.linux.debian.devel.release, you wrote:
> On 17/10/2010 22:08, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>> Hi Ryan/release team,
>> During my review of open security issues I noticed that the
>> version of Midori currently in Squeeze still has broken
>> HTTPS support. (#582213)
> This bug is only about packaging a new upstream release, maybe you were
> referring to #595813 ? Though afair midori in squeeze does support https
> (meaning, it can connect to an https website).

I'm referring to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=19;bug=582213:

| it would be really nice to get 0.2.6 into squeeze. 0.2.5 introduced
| basic HTTPS certificate validation support, which is essential to do
| any serious HTTPS stuff which isn't only snakeoil security, like online
| banking. Previous midori releases supported HTTPS, but don't validate
| the server certificate against root certificates.

>> We shouldn't ship a browser with the state as-is. We could
>> either drop it or update to the version currently in sid?
> The version currently in sid is already outdated though (I've made some
> packaging for 0.2.8 but didn't upload yet, still not sure about taking
> over maintainership...)
> In any case, the https support by midori is working but not really
> satisfying. The browser can connect to https website, and in recent
> versions even change the url bar color, but that's all. There's no
> configuration support, no way to add an AC or a client certificate, no
> way to see the certificate a website is using.
> Some might think that makes the browser unusable and unsuitable for
> Squeeze, I'm not so sure. It's a shame the browser doesn't have a real
> https support, but it's still working and is a nice little browser. I
> don't think it should be installed by default but it's still useful in a
> stable release (imho).

Weööll, ie HTTPS support is so limited, it's unlikely to be used 
anyway, so we might just as well leave the current version in.


Reply to: