Ignoring the security implications, I miss kb large old raw html websites that loaded instantly on DSL internet. Nowadays shit is too fancy because hardware allows that, but I feel we’re just constantly running into more bugs first and then worry about them later.
Edit: I’ve thought more about it, and I think I just missed the simplicity of the internet back then. There’s just too much bloat these days with ad trackers and misinformation. I kinda forgot just how bright and eye jarring most old UIs were lol.
So it’s possible to bring up related issues in a thread (HTML) within the context of a post (old timey Internet). I’m bringing up HTTP because while running around saying HTML on its own is secure is true, what’s not true was that loading HTML over HTTP was secure.
It is more secure than anything now is if used over HTTP.
Oldschool HTML isn’t active, it doesn’t do anything client side.
So the only insecure thing about it is that someone external can see what you were looking at.
Someone external can see what you look at, and they can show you a fake version of the site.
It can also be modified while in transit which runs the risk of the HTML data being incorrect/misleading. An attacker could also simply deny requests.
I don’t know why this comment thread keeps reiterating that we’re talking about HTML; y’all are like a broken record that can’t seem to get past this very simple aspect of the conversation. I haven’t brought up JavaScript, CSS, images, or any of that at all. I’ve only brought up the transport, HTTP.
If we really wanted to get into it we could go on about how unencrypted DNS also makes it insecure because now I can track every website you go to, redirect you somewhere else or block legitimate hosts (yes, on “HTML-only websites” too 🥴).
My point is that claiming HTML-only websites are secure even over plaintext HTTP is misleading. It would still leak all your online browsing to anyone in the middle and open up avenues for them to meddle with the stream while in transit.
deleted by creator