Page 2 of 7

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 20 Mar 2017 09:41
by Reef
After hacking the forum code and enabling your webcam I can clearly tell that you are being less than truthful, I'd say that belly is at least a 48" :lol:

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 20 Mar 2017 15:35
by Bandit & The Snowman
SCS should be interested in a secure website on their own; their admin and moderator credentials would surely be nice prey to hackers.

Https sites are also slower and require more server power (might be one reason why we still have http). One thing I really like about this site is that it loads very swiftly, however if there's more security to be gained I would gladly accept some site lag.

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 20 Mar 2017 16:58
by Reef
My account is already hacked, all the nice and the helpful posts are by me and the moody and confrontational ones are from the hacker..

Honest!.. :D




Apparently I haven't made many posts then.. :oops:

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 20 Mar 2017 17:37
by Moh1336
Wait so who wants Welsh paints, Reef or hacker Reef? :P

We shouldn't bow down to a hackers whims!

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 20 Mar 2017 17:43
by Reef
He's a welsh hacker, so both :P

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 20 Mar 2017 22:53
by tbar
SiSL wrote:you try to connect from "https" instead of default "http" that's why.
Just the opposite SiSL, I was using the standard forum.scssoft.com login and Firefox advised me to use https to establish a secure link which this site does not support.

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 21 Mar 2017 07:21
by SiSL
Firefox shows warning icon about every site that is not SSL...

No big deal really... So what? Your session ID can be seen from cookies if your computer is hacked or your connection is comprimsed by CIA, big deal, pft. Best that hacker can do is post with your name here. Can not change your password, email etc.

CIA is investigating what tbar will do in this top secret "gaming" covered site.

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 21 Mar 2017 08:51
by marcel-dutch
SiSL wrote:Firefox shows warning icon about every site that is not SSL...
Firefox shows warning icon about every site that IS SSL... also. :evil:

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 21 Mar 2017 09:03
by Moh1336
Firefox shows warnings because you look like you want to surf the web. :lol:

If it wasn't for all the customisation I put into FF, I would probably just switch browsers at this point. FF has gone down hill over the last couple of years IMO.

Re: SCS Insecure website.

Posted: 21 Mar 2017 09:34
by golcan
Hi mates,
Reef wrote:I get what you're saying and to a point agree, but at the end of the day is it SCS's job/responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity/naivety?
Although I tend to agree with you, in the end everything is ruled by laws.
Axel Slingerland wrote:There is no such thing as a 100% secure website.
Exactly! Anyway, one can reduce probabilities adopting standards.
SiSL wrote: No big deal really... So what? Your session ID can be seen from cookies if your computer is hacked or your connection is comprimsed by CIA, big deal, pft. Best that hacker can do is post with your name here. Can not change your password, email etc.

CIA is investigating what tbar will do in this top secret "gaming" covered site.
According to this post, you are part of Radio Trucker. Is it correct?
If I go to http://radiotrucker.com, it FORCES ME to use SSL. Do you know why a site dedicated to the simple stuff of creating and sharing lists of online radio stations forces me to use SSL?
Why a site dedicated to a simple (and non top secret, I suppose) activity of radio lists should force SSL and a forum like this, where people could share personal information in PMs, shouldn't use SSL?
The fact that official agencies (NSA -more than CIA-, GCHQ, etc.) can access online information doesn't mean that one have to put in risk personal information to ANY people, do you agree?
In fact, our data is shared by governments, it is not a problem for me, but we can prevent access from other persons using SSL, that's one of the main reasons why it was created. I guess you know about it, because you probably are forced to use SSL on many sites (the same that happen to many/most of us).
Anyway, if you disagree, I respect your idea, as you have to respect the idea of those that would like to have standards enabled.

Kind regards.