zlacker

GoDaddy locks out derivatives of Chrome

submitted by mrspen+(OP) on 2022-07-14 09:56:15 | 217 points 165 comments
[source] [go to bottom]

Only allows direct versions of Google Chrome, Edge, Safari and Firefox

See message here when using Brave, a Google Chrome (chromium) derivative: https://i.imgur.com/MV66H85.png

Triggered when trying to log in.


NOTE: showing posts with links only show all posts
1. ColinW+J[view] [source] 2022-07-14 10:06:59
>>mrspen+(OP)
I'm reminded of this:

https://www.technologizer.com/2010/09/16/the-unwelcome-retur...

Also submitted here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32094029

◧◩◪◨
45. eis+D8[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 11:28:55
>>pdw+k5
Actually it's trivial to detect if JS was completely blocked with the <noscript> tag. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/no...

And on the flip side you can trivially detect if some .js file was blocked from loading with some inline <script> tag that checks for whatever the .js file should expose.

The third case with the browser not implementing some feature is a bit more work but usually also rather easy to do.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
55. dknech+aa[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 11:42:06
>>dave44+U8
We offer a zero-markup registrar on self-service platform also - https://blog.cloudflare.com/registrar-for-everyone/
◧◩◪
56. mkl95+ka[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 11:43:53
>>oriett+S9
A particularly egregious example is "Tell HN: Never search for domains on Godaddy.com" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24506303
◧◩◪◨
63. oriett+9c[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 11:57:27
>>mkl95+ka
uh, but I see there is a clear response cited there, too https://www.godaddy.com/garage/godaddy-felons-io-unregistere...

anything else?

◧◩◪
67. adding+Hc[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 12:01:31
>>oriett+s9
> I do not see any bad event in wikipedia

There is a "Controversies" section of their Wikipedia article with 8 distinct sub-headings, and the section is prefixed with "For a more comprehensive list, see List of controversies involving GoDaddy" linking to another dedicated 15-section article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoDaddy#Controversies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...

◧◩◪◨⬒
69. jefftk+Rd[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 12:08:00
>>zelphi+36
<script src="https://example.com/js"> is not an experimental web platform feature.
◧◩◪◨⬒
73. mkl95+4g[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 12:19:35
>>oriett+9c
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
◧◩◪◨
82. citize+jk[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 12:38:46
>>spaceh+bi
Educate yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involv...
◧◩
95. teddyh+oo[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 12:59:49
>>_notat+19
Like I have said previously¹ about choosing a registrar: If you have regular backups, and if some downtime is not really a problem, it might be fine to use web site hosting, e-mail (and in extreme cases even DNS hosting), from some fly-by-night el cheapo provider. But your domain name registrar? Pick them carefully, don’t skimp, and make sure they have good support. Because when things go pear-shaped, you really want to be able to actually talk to someone to change your web server or e-mail DNS records (or even DNS servers) to somewhere else.

Big registrars can’t afford any support costs since they prefer to squeeze the price down as far as possible, and therefore they prefer to simply lose or outright drop any customer in case of any and all problems. Conversely, small registrars may charge more, but have better (i.e. actually existing, and sometimes even dedicated and personal) support for when things go wrong, and have a vested interest in keeping you as a customer.

A small registrar might also be so small as to know you personally, which will help monumentally against any social engineering attacks.

Full disclosure: I work at such a registrar, but you’re probably not in our target market.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30818950#30821221

◧◩
99. dessan+fp[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 13:05:35
>>pluc+v4
I still remember how their jerk founder "saved" a village in Zimbabwe from a "problem elephant", and they have basically advertised their business using boobs for years. And that's besides all the scummy actions and questionable security practices of GoDaddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Parsons#Controversies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...

◧◩◪
104. up6w6+yq[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 13:11:56
>>mcinty+f9
https://news.gandi.net/en/2022/03/for-all-the-people-and-one...

> Cutting off Russians and Belarusians would only encourage the creation of different closed worlds and digital networks. We have chosen to hold out our hand to these people. We are not at war with them. Only their leaders, and their madness, need to be stopped. We will of course react quickly against war propaganda of any kind.

Few points that made me choose them (though I would probably take Cloudflare if they supported the TLD of my domains):

https://www.gandi.net/en/no-bullshit

https://www.gandi.net/en/gandi-supports

◧◩
111. archi4+Bt[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 13:27:45
>>_notat+19
I'm using NetCup for my DNS. They're based in Germany, operate from Nürnberg and expanded to Vienna (Austria) a while ago. DNS can be managed via Web UI (which I use) or API (but no ddclient support). I am not doing much with my domains besides mail, but afaict it worked as reliable as to be expected. I don't know their political views.

Speaking of ddclient, maybe check supported DNS services: https://github.com/ddclient/ddclient I don't think it's a good measure of quality, but if someone bothered extending ddclient for their service, it's probably not that bad. Plus if you ever find yourself wanting to use ddclient, it's nice having your provider supported. (NetCup is not supported, which is why I have to run an extra service on my Linux box instead of simply using the OpnSense).

◧◩◪◨
112. teddyh+1u[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 13:29:40
>>_notat+4q
I’ve been asked this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21436448#21437951
◧◩◪◨⬒
151. DocTom+2h1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 17:19:11
>>sjtind+jN
I wonder if it is more dehumanizing to the affected woman to show an attractive woman, or to not show women at all.

I think to be consistent with the 'don't use women for ads' approach, you need to be opposed to use human-based or non-product-related human interest advertisement at all, which includes, but is probably not limited to men [1], children [2], the elderly [3], people of a certain demographic and/or sexual orientation and/or gender identity [4], or national rivalries [5][6] or stereotypes [7] or even the concepts of such. You would also have to have a stern look at the art scene, because sex also sells as sculpture, on canvas, as a particularly suggestive voice or on the screen - it may be part of the work, but it also has an advertising effect.

And what a bleak world would that be.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C-vYY3SBDE [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqgSO8_cRio [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4IaHgqH00 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_gHMNs5iE [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvKVE6rLI0 [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g72KE8dmjc [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQnPWjK5pE

◧◩◪◨⬒
159. 93po+nd2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-07-14 23:16:56
>>oriett+9c
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoDaddy#Controversies
[go to top]