ericselin

5 ms·

1.
Why FreeSewing with its users migrated to statichost.eu(statichost.eu)
1 points by ericselin 8mo ago|1 comments
2.
by ericselin 8mo ago
FreeSwewing is an awesome project by Joost De Cock! You should totally check it out if you're into sewing. And if you're into digital sovereignty tou should totally check out statichost.eu (disclaimer: I'm the founder :) TL;D
3.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Based on what I've seen, there's no way to get that project into the PSL. I would recommend you to have the content available at projectcontent.com if the main site is project.com, though. :)
4.
by ericselin 11mo ago
The thing is, for users, having a separate domain wouldn't have made any difference without the PSL. And you cannot get on there before you're big enough - which I'd say is roughly at the same time as you start grabbing the a
5.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Sure, and sorry for being so unclear. The point of my post was meant to be a) Google has this enormous cannon, is this "right"? And b) they will use it to kill anything bigger than a mosquito. But you're right, complaining ab
6.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Ok, I see. You mean the possibility of users impersonating statichost.eu itself. That is actually a good point, and the exact reason why user subdomains are required to have a dash in them. Edit: Also, only ASCII is allowed. :) I guess cont
7.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Author here. What kind of security negligence are you referring to? What would be a specific attack vector that I left open? Regarding the PSL - and I can't believe I'm writing this again: you cannot get on there before your servi
8.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Thank you for this hacker-minded and sharp comment! <3 Seriously, not all comments on here are as fun to read for me as the author and fellow hacker. And for what it's worth, it feels great to actually pay for something Google provi
9.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Many commenters are implying that there is a security issue here, and that I'm putting everyone in danger. That is quite frankly a pretty absurd claim to just casually make. I'm of course very curious to hear more details on what
10.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Author here. I understand that my post and what I'm trying to say is unclear. And that there are too many different aspects to all this. What I'm trying to say in the post specifically about Google is that I personally think that
11.
by ericselin 11mo ago
So the problem here is that Alice on alice.statichost.page might set a cookie for the `.statichost.page` domain if she's careless (which is sometimes the case with Alice). This cookie can then be read by Mallory on mallory.statichost.e
12.
by ericselin 11mo ago
https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/wiki/Guidelines#validat... "Projects that are smaller in scale or are temporary or seasonal in nature will likely be declined. Examples of this might be private-use,
13.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Please note that this tool (PSL) is not available until you have a significant user base. Which probably means a significant amount of spam as well.
14.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Fair enough! :)
15.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Since there's a lot of discussion about the Public Suffix list, let me point out that it's not just a webform where you can add any domain. There's a whole approval process where one very important criterion is that the domai
16.
by ericselin 11mo ago
The thing is, you cannot just add any domain to the PSL. You need a significant amount of users before they will include your domain. Before recently, there really was no point in even submitting, since the domain would have been rejected a
17.
by ericselin 11mo ago
I respectfully disagree with your premise. In this specific case, yes, "Google does good thing" in a sense. That is not why I'm saying Google has too much power. "Too much" is relative and whether they do good or ba
18.
by ericselin 11mo ago
You are right, it would still affect all users. Until the pending PSL inclusion is complete, that is. But it now separates my own resources, such as the website and dashboard of statichost.eu from that.
19.
by ericselin 11mo ago
(Author here) This is all true. The main assumption from my part is that anything remotely important or even sensitive should be and is hosted on a domain that is _not_ companysubdomain.domain.com but instead www.company.com.
20.
by ericselin 11mo ago
That is a great point. When I see these sites I'm always seeing a dozen red flags, and maybe the biggest one is that it's showing a "NatWest" banking site or something and is hosted on "portal-abc.statichost.eu&quot
21.
by ericselin 11mo ago
You are right, of course. I'm not sure if those of you who disagree with me think that Safe Browsing did its job (which it did!), that Safe Browsing is a good thing (which it maybe is, but which I slightly disagree with), or that it&#x
22.
by ericselin 11mo ago
I'm not saying that Google or Safe Browsing in particular did anything wrong per se. My point is primarily that Google has too much power over the internet. I know that in this case what actually happened is because of me not putting e
23.
by ericselin 11mo ago
This is of course true! It just takes an incident like this to get ones head out of ones ass and actually do it. :)
24.
by ericselin 11mo ago
Good question, it probably shouldn't be legal. Enforcing the law on these behemoths is another problem, though... :)
25.
Google Safe Browsing incident(statichost.eu)
240 points by ericselin 11mo ago|174 comments
26.
by ericselin 3y ago
While I agree with most of the comments that font-size for body text should ideally be 1rem (and certainly clamped), what about headings? When I think about different font sizes I think about headings, where it absolutely makes sense to hav
27.
by ericselin 3y ago
Thank you! Simple is indeed one of the goals. Currently, a particular site exists as static files on one specific server, with some failover mechanisms in place. So mainly availability is achieved by having enough server resources and havin
28.
Show HN: Statichost.eu – privacy-first static site hosting(statichost.eu)
11 points by ericselin 3y ago|4 comments