linuxmemes

I don't think there is any vulnerability in https. There are know limitations but https itself is fine. If you are talking about TLS vulnerabilities then we have much more to worry about. To compromise the content on a page someone would have to brute force TLS very fast which isn't feasible with today's computer. Today's computer would take at least a few million years. But I have scene estimates that say long past the heat death of the universe.

Even if https was full of holes it still would be better than http. Http has zero tamper protections or encryption. Companies like AT&T used to tamper with traffic to various purposes and it was feasible for them to do so.

Stop spreading bullshit!

Once again you seem to be calling for not bothering with any security effort of there's even a remote chance of some other vulnerability happening.

The whole point of security is that it's always a multi-layered thing. Nobody sane is pretending that encrypting web traffic with HTTPS is a panacea that's going to solve all your data security needs. But it is sure as hell a million times better than having all of your data transmitted in the clear, with absolutely no assurance that you're are talking to the system you think you're talking to, or that the data hasn't been tampered with in transit.

And don't pretend https is a huge burden. It's dead simple to get SSL/TLS certs, and the additional load of encrypting and decrypting the traffic is barely even a rounding error on modern CPUs.

Computers are always getting faster so it always necessary to stay well ahead of the curve. The big shift recently was the that the default hash switched to defend against massive GPU farms. The modern hash requires a lot more memory but as AI pushes memory to increase we are now potentially seeing machines that can break the hash. To my knowledge that is theoretical and would require a significant amount of hardware but never underestimate the budget of the government.