Chrome Error

I've had this issue for a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.

Guys this is an ongoing battle between browser coders and rest of the world. Google, firefox, and others made the decision a couple years back to put pressure on everyone to start using secure sites. At a minimum that means the site should use https and traffic to and from the site should be encrypted. You can tell if a site does by the address.
If it is just like this
forum.365.strat-o-matic it is not using https and Google considers that site insecure
www.forum.365.strat-o-matic it is not using https and is not considered secure. Some versions of browsers will simply provide warning something like this: A warning triangle possibly followed by the words Not secure.

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/member/login Notice the login page uses https meaning among other things the username and password you enter is passed back and forth encrypted. You will see a closed padlock indicating this is secure and in the address bar the address starts with https. This means it meats minimal standards for being consider secure. Data passed between the server and your browser client is suppose to be encrypted.

For a brief period firefox and google actually blocked such sites from being reached. That caused a firestorm and they quit that. But from time to time they continue to briefly revert back to either blocking the non-secure sites or throwing up that warning. You can safely ignore it and continue. Essentially they are trying to encourage enough users of that site to complain to the owners of the website causing them to make the full switch to https support.

Now some sites resist as https not only requires libraries for encrypting and decrypting data there is a license fee. Or at least there used to be back when I initially researched this. That fee is charged by the hosting service such as GoDaddy and WordPress, etc. Some smaller sites such as Strato fought this with the argument except for the login no personal data was being passed back and forth that needed encrypted to hide from snooping eyes and may have chosen not to pay for the more expensive encrypted libraries. I do note that when I use firefox as my browser I see the little lock and/or the https web address. Firefox was adamant about it being required. Google is inconsistent.

It is my opinion all websites should encrypt all traffic and by law any data that is stored whether considered sensitive or not should be encrypted by law. If it was you would read about fewer data breaches.

Anyway, that is the long version of the story. Short version likely what your team stats are or who you are setting as your per game starters is something anyone would care about. But in theory if Strat is not using https and encrypting the data someone could perform a hack and see who was setting their pergame starters and use that information. But I doubt anyone would care so much about gaining a strat advantage to bother with that sort of hack. But then again....

Those of you getting this message could complain to Strat but unless they became more responsive while I was away I would be you will be ingored and they will do whatever they want. Nobody is going to quit using Strat online over this which means their pocket book is not going to take a hit and they are not going to change to the more expensive code libraries. In my opinion it is safe to just ignore that error message and use the settings to bypass it and continue to site or just use a different browser that is not currently trying to force the issue.

Thanks, Valen. Very informative. And yes, I quit emailing Strat some time ago because I was not getting any response or replies at all.

Thanks for the coding lesson. VERY helpful information.

And lately there is another wrinkle that I run in to in my work. Many programs now have digital signatures. These are issued by independent organizations like Microsoft. These can be useful for anti-malware programs as they can check the digital signature. But all the organizations that issue digital signatures also charge money and it is often by subscription. You pay to get the intitial signature. And you continue to pay to keep your digital signature registered.

Some smaller companies either cannot afford this extra expense or some may simply choose not to as it does nothing for them. This can result in occasional false positives where anti-malware programs like McAfee might quarantine the program simply because it does not have a digital signature. You then have to either got to settings and skip scanning the folder containing the program or whitelist the executable.