This is getting annoying. And no, "Advanced" does

>>58843044
Don't you see "Accept risk" button?

>>58843044
Are you retarded?

>>58843144
It's two different browsers..

Stop visiting shit sites then. Retard.

>>58843165
You'd think that would be obvious, but apparently its not.

>>58843223
Or I could stop using shit browsers.

>>58843165
Oh, sorry. Though it makes me like Firefox more, their approach to security is commendable.

>>58843269
>completely stopping their user from visiting a website without providing a way around in case the user knows what he is doing is commendable
I guess if they want the Chrome audience it's okay though.
Then again, why shouldn't I just use Chrome?

>>58843269
It's not commendable, it's autistic.
Show a warning, sure, but it should be up to the user if to proceed or not.

>>58843044
>One browser follows the HSTS specification properly
>The other does not

>>58843325
>but it should be up to the user if to proceed or not.
No, it shouldn't.

Unless you want to make the assumption that the majority of users make the decision to accept the risks rationally and with adequate education and knowledge, and they don't just blindly click the button to keep browsing.

Users become desensitized to these warnings and don't care.

>>58843044
This happens to me too now. Idk what happened

Ignore them

>>58843383
>>58843392
You know, the browsers should display the originating IP(s) of the hosts so I could check them manually. But no. Just because there's a fucking retarded specification doesn't mean a browser has to follow it.

>>58843393
Firefox doesn't allow me to ignore it.

>>58843044
>Browser explains in clear words why it doesn't allow you to add a security exception and continue
>TL;DR WHERE IS SKIP BUTTON I WANT MY VIRUS HURF DURF

This is EXACTLY why they disabled the ability to add security exceptions. 99% of people don't read these warnings, they just click through and then cry about evil Bill Gates when they get ransomware.

>>58843458
>the browsers should display the originating IP(s) of the hosts so I could check them manually

If you are savvy enough to check IPs manually (check against what exactly?), you should be able to deal with this situation without crying on /g/.

>>58843458
Checking the IP isn't going to protect you against MiTM. Sounds like you're the sort of person browser vendors are trying to protect from themselves.

>>58843527
>check against what exactly?
The IP that I know is the valid one for the host I am trying to reach.

>>58843596
Yes it is. Mitm is literally abusing the name service to redirect the traffic through a forged host (which has a different IP) pretending to be the original host.

>>58845260
I'd suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.

>>58843223
This can happen if you're using a WiFi that you have to log in to. Chrome sees that the https request redirects and won't load the login page unless you go to a site that doesn't use https. It's seriously a pain

>>58845260
>The IP that I know is the valid one for the host I am trying to reach.
kek