Joe's Window Manager site problem - SOLVED

For discussions about security.
Post Reply
Message
Author
ASD

Joe's Window Manager site problem - SOLVED

#1 Post by ASD »

EDIT 6th May 2016
Here, with thanks to Joe for his fix. is a link to what is currently the last post in this thread:

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 577#902577
---------------------------------------------------

JWM (Joe's Window Manager) is widely used in Puppy Linux.

http://joewing.net/ , Joe's official site, was easily accessed (by me) about a week ago.

Now, and for some days past, using the Pale Moon browser I get the message in the screen shot.

I have also tried using different browsers from different Pups; all failed - so I would appreciate any Forum member's report and especially any advice.
Attachments
shot.png
(61.62 KiB) Downloaded 503 times
Last edited by ASD on Fri 06 May 2016, 08:44, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
0xdawg
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri 18 Sep 2015, 20:12
Location: .de/

#2 Post by 0xdawg »

It's an unknown SSL cert that your browser tries preventing you from since the connection is secured -> https://joewing.net/

what you'll need to do is click I understand the risks, then you'll read:
If you understand what's going on, you can tell Pale Moon to start trusting this site's identification. Even if you trust the site, this error could mean that someone is tampering with your connection.
Don't add an exception unless you know there's a good reason why this site doesn't use trusted identification.

click on [Add exception]
a popup is gonna ask you if you want to add an exception again
(latest Google Chrome 50 btw doesn't block that cert)

everything is fine with that site -- this SSL certificate is made by the owner himself, but not insecure at all
(had to edit this last sentence -- well, i'm not a native speaker ;] )
Last edited by 0xdawg on Wed 04 May 2016, 14:49, edited 1 time in total.
[size=75][b][url]https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe[/url][/b][/size]

ASD

#3 Post by ASD »

Oxdawg,

Thank you. I followed your advice and I see the JWM logo has changed shape (now much reduced in height) since a week ago; so perhaps Joe has revamped his site, but not the certificate?

linuxcbon
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu 09 Aug 2007, 22:54

Re: JWM site is down?

#4 Post by linuxcbon »

The site works ok, you only need to accept the certificate, that's all.

User avatar
ally
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat 19 May 2012, 19:29
Location: lincoln, uk
Contact:

#5 Post by ally »

just been to site and all is well, must have caught at a bad time?

:)

ASD

#6 Post by ASD »

ally et al,

For me, the site is still down, so I have sent Joe a message with a link to this thread in the hope that he may wish to comment.

Thanks to all responders

User avatar
technosaurus
Posts: 4853
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 01:24
Location: Blue Springs, MO
Contact:

#7 Post by technosaurus »

You guys may want to bookmark https://github.com/joewing/jwm/
Joe is doing regular development on it and is pretty responsive to bug reports and even feature requests if you file an issue.
Check out my [url=https://github.com/technosaurus]github repositories[/url]. I may eventually get around to updating my [url=http://bashismal.blogspot.com]blogspot[/url].

joewing
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun 24 Dec 2006, 20:43

#8 Post by joewing »

The site should be up. It was down during a power outage for about an hour yesterday.

As far as the certificate is concerned, it is from a certificate authority, perhaps the browser is out-of-date?

ebisu
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed 25 Sep 2013, 05:06

#9 Post by ebisu »

Attachments
opera12.png
(23.47 KiB) Downloaded 348 times
Last edited by ebisu on Mon 01 Aug 2016, 12:12, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#10 Post by James C »

Just visited the site, no problems with up-to-date Chrome.No warning,just straight to the site.
Attachments
20160504.jpg
(81.92 KiB) Downloaded 327 times

User avatar
perdido
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon 09 Dec 2013, 16:29
Location: ¿Altair IV , Just north of Eeyore Junction.?

#11 Post by perdido »

I loaded https://joewing.net/ at https://browsershots.org/

Out of 178 browsers attempted, only 14 could load the page.

Fail for 164/178 (92% failed)

Looks to be working for
--------------------------------------------
Chrome 29.0 / Windows 7
Chrome 30.0 / Windows 7
Chrome 31.0 / Windows 7
Chrome 35.0.1916.69 / Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)
Chrome 43.0.2357.124 / Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)
Chrome 44.0.2403.157 / Windows 7
Chrome 45.0.2454.85 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze)
Chrome 48.0.2564.97 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze)
Chrome 48.0.2564.116 / Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion)
Chrome 50.0.2661.86 / Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (Precise Pangolin)
Epiphany 3.4.2 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze)
Luakit 1.10.2 / Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (Precise Pangolin)
Midori 0.4 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze)
Opera 12.16 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze)
-------------------------------------------
Also tried Tor browser, it complained the connection is untrusted but let me bypass the warning.
"joewing.net uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown. (Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)"

.

User avatar
6502coder
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon 23 Mar 2009, 18:07
Location: Western United States

#12 Post by 6502coder »

Works fine for me, using both Opera 37.0 and Firefox 46.0.1 on Win7 Pro

ASD

#13 Post by ASD »

joewing

Thank for replying. Using the latest versions of SeaMonkey (v 2.40) and Pale Moon (v 26.2.1 (x64)) I have, almost certainly, tried both (with no success) every day for about the last week or so.

It seems peculiar that the "ancient" Opera v 12 (but perhaps not v 12.16) fails for ebisu, but one of perdido's amazing tests which worked used Opera 12.16 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze).

ebisu
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed 25 Sep 2013, 05:06

#14 Post by ebisu »

Last edited by ebisu on Mon 01 Aug 2016, 12:14, edited 1 time in total.

joewing
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun 24 Dec 2006, 20:43

#15 Post by joewing »

I removed the redirect and re-enabled the HTTP version. So it should work with plain HTTP now or with HTTPS, though some browsers may have the redirect cached.

I guess I should have spent more on the certificate. I got it mostly for email, so I can't complain too much.

Post Reply