Without HTTPS someone could alter the content, spread false information, inject ads, malware, and other stuff, redirect to some other site, …

(This is a general remark, but it goes for a blog post like this as well.)

▲

himata4113 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's still a weak argument since it's extremely rare in practice that's why I suggested blaming the ISP instead since ISP's are the ones that have historically tampered with http content.

▲

foobiekr 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Attacks in general are all rare in practice in the grand scheme of the internet. So?

	▲	reaperducer 13 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not everyone has to prepare their home for a leopard attack.
	▲	himata4113 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, that's why you present a better argument, that's the entire conversation.

▲

Joker_vD 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The site owners could do all of that even with HTTPS, and no-one would revoke their certs. Just saying.

And the best Windows malware is actually digitally signed.