On Sat, 3 Dec 2016, Langdon White wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to be checking for status 200? Checking for content on the page seems
fragile in general.
Who says a stolen page wouldn't return status 200?
Also, and perhaps related, I filed a bug[1] about captive portals that seems to have some attention.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362449
That is a different issue. And indeed I see it as well, and was quite
surprised at them checking the TLS validity of a captive portal page.
I have that on top of the bug where it just shows me the gnome page
instead of the actual captive portal page.
Seems like the file date is still well in the past
(2015-12-15) and does not actually contain a newline;
webserver behavior change?
That is my guess. I've pushed an update for geome (a tool to tell you
your location based on IP address) which does a captive portal check
to give a more meaningful error if a captive portal prevents it from
working.
Paul
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
