Reply 740 of 788, by The Solutor
MattRocks wrote on 2026-09-28, 19:28:It's a tricky one. The latest release has fewer known security vulnerabilities than Chrome 108
Come on! We aren't in the IE6 days anymore, security is, almost always, just an excuse to remove bits of freedom, in IT, just like in real life.
but the risks are to users
I understand actions of websites to protect their self, also because for them the security treats are real.
But about users? Let users take care of their self!
That Appleish idea that users needs a "mom" that tells them what's good and what's bad, is simply hideous, practically and by principle.
I don't think we should be mandating hardened browsers. I think, instead, we should be educating people.
It's my motto since the dawn of times, "upgrade the users instead of downgrade OSes and programs", which is more or less the antimatter of the trend started by Apple since when they regained traction and started to turn their users in zombies.
In my view of utopia, most sites would display a banner highlighting the most significant vulnerability. And, the user would harden their banking connections rather than their anonymous hobbies. And, websites would degrade gracefully with different amounts of JavaScript disabled.
Seriously, these days OSes and Browsers are, more or less, robust enough, most of the treats for the end users, are directed directly to them, not their PCs.
People, especially uninformed, and/or busy are way simpler to hack than any browser, even IE6. The only protection from ignorance (in general, but specificy to IT security) is knowledge, not Chrome 19768
Back to the specific argument. I don't believe that a generic page, with a generic http2 error, is something the web administrator did on purpose, looks more like a misconfiguration of something.
(Hideous)Sites that blocks older browsers on purpose are relatively common, but they are used to show a clear webpage telling "we are sorry, but your browser is not supported anymore, please update, bla...bla...bla...
