A HTTPS Everywhere replacement Topic is solved

[gracious1]

…always have to remind myself to look at things from my users less educated point of view, otherwise I assume too much and miss important details.

That is excellent advice for anyone answering any questions here on the forum!

[Rekov]

So is there a reliable replacement for HTTPS Everywhere, then?

[Falna]

So is there a reliable replacement for HTTPS Everywhere, then?

https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/encrypted-web/

[half-moon]

So is there a reliable replacement for HTTPS Everywhere, then?

https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/encrypted-web/

Note from the Add-ons Team: This extension is abandoned, and not supported on Pale Moon 27 or above. Please see our Incompatible Add-ons page for alternatives.

[tomysshadow]

So is there a reliable replacement for HTTPS Everywhere, then?

https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/encrypted-web/

Note from the Add-ons Team: This extension is abandoned, and not supported on Pale Moon 27 or above. Please see our Incompatible Add-ons page for alternatives.

That doesn't make any sense. I just updated, and I still have the icon. After performing a test, I have found that the extension still does in fact work and will redirect to the HTTPS version of a website. It's working 100%, how is it incompatible?

[Baloo]

HTTPS everywhere can be installed using the Moon Tester tool.

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

What's wrong with Encrypted Web, the Pale Moon port of HTTPS Everywhere?
I've been using it for many months now, possibly even years, I forget. . . . seems to work fine for me on PM 27.4.2, but maybe that' s not the case? . . . incompatible add-ons says: "(NOTE: This extension has been abandoned and will not work on Pale Moon 27 or above"
https://addons.palemoon.org/incompatible/

I confirm that Encrypted Web seems to work fine in PM 27.6.2 (64-bit), in X in Openbox in an ultra-light non-standard Ubuntu 16.04. I using it with SSleuth 0.4.5 which does a decent if not perfect (I sure wish I could configure it's colors) job of calling your attention to a site opened with plain http. I doubt either are perfect, but I doubt that https-everywhere is or was perfect in Firefox either.

If you posit, for the sake of argument, that the goal is to use https whenever it seems to be working, and falling back automatically to http when https seems not to work, while giving you a heads up that it has done so, this seems to come pretty close.

Http-nowhere certainly works, but it blocks a lot of sites & it isn't immediately obvious (to me at least) when a page fails to open if that is WHY it failed to open. If you want to see those pages you spend a lot time turning the extension on and off.

Maybe there are some sites that will return an https version that lacks functions that the http version would have but which are none-the-less "working" from Encrypted-Web's perspective and perhaps in some cases that wouldn't be apparent to the NI behind the keyboard. I don't know of an example like that but maybe they exist.

I tested using this site:
http://httpbin.org/
or more precisely with a link to that site from a duckduckgo page. Disable EW & it opens with http. Enable EW & it opens with https.

So, yes, good question: "What's wrong with Encrypted Web?" I'd like to know the answer also. Does it do something terrible that isn't obvious, like deleting bookmarks at random or some such? Or show sites as 404 when they aren't or what?

[coffeebreak]

So, yes, good question: "What's wrong with Encrypted Web?" I'd like to know the answer also. Does it do something terrible that isn't obvious, like deleting bookmarks at random or some such? Or show sites as 404 when they aren't or what?

For disclosure, I don't use Encrypted Web (nor HTTPS Everywhere) but...

Maintenance ended for Encrypted Web about a year and a half ago, announced here.
I think people's concern stems from that lack of maintenance and from simply not knowing what effect that has, if any.

Based on information in the announcement, some of Encrypted Web's rulesets would presumably be out of date, but I have no idea how much this might compromise the effectiveness of the extension.