"The whole Droplr stack runs on HTTPS" ...except content(support.droplr.com) |
"The whole Droplr stack runs on HTTPS" ...except content(support.droplr.com) |
First, apologies that we didn't meet your expectations in regards to security on our service. Just to be clear, any password-related data or personal information you've sent in Droplr has been over HTTPS. But, we didn't go as far as we should have. We misjudged where usage was falling on the public-private spectrum, and we're ensuring we meet privacy expectations now.
We can see that it's a priority for people, and it's a priority for us. We've already deployed the fix, so ALL drop content should now be served over HTTPS.
We'll work on getting the pages themselves on the d.pr domain served over HTTPS as well and also look into a solution or better documentation for customers using their own custom domain.
Thanks for your patience with us and I hope you can forgive us and give us another shot.
Cheers
Unless there was personal information in a file I shared using Droplr.
I'm not the person who raised this issue on your support site. I'd never even heard of Droplr until somebody shared this link with me for a laugh. While the title of my submission might not reflect it, I find the lack of comprehension and dismissive attitude of your customer service representative more off-putting than the original security flaw. He closed the ticket multiple times claiming that "the whole Droplr platform runs on HTTPS," when that clearly wasn't the case. Glyph was remarkably patient in re-opening and re-explaining the issue until the rep finally seemed to realize why he was wrong, whereupon the answer changed from "this isn't an issue, we already support the feature you're requesting" to "we're already aware of this issue but it's not a big deal," without even an acknowledgment that he'd so fundamentally misunderstood the request, let alone an apology for blowing him off repeatedly.
Since they are using S3 (guessing by the second to last comment - http://support.droplr.com/discussions/suggestions/153-https#...) they can use amazon's SSL url
so: http://files.droplr.com/files_production/acc_1927/xkcd?AWSAc....
would become: https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.droplr.com/files_production/a...
The only reason not to would be to hide the fact they are using S3, but the AWSAccessKeyId tips their hand anyways.
Edit: Looks like they're fixing the problem after all. It's unfortunate that it took a Hacker News article to bring attention to the problem, but at least they're taking the appropriate steps.
>The reason why the content itself is not served under https is precisely to avoid the SSL warning.
That annoying warning is the hearth of the secure connection. It surprises me how people choose an easy way and doesn't care about "doing things right"
I don't know that this is supposed to be a customer-service system, though.
Something about the tone of this response irks me.
Reminds me of someone doing it right: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#f...
* Who uses a free file sending service for critical docs? * The only mention of 'secure' on their homepage has (to my mind) more of an implication of "safe and secure eg your file won't be lost" rather than "secure from hackers"
I think it's forgivable, at least for the free version of the service. Maybe they should upgrade then tout the paid version as offering https as a benefit.
Your suggestion is actually what I have in the works, SSL by default for everything premium users touch (and the files they share).
Bruno de Carvalho closed this discussion
Glyph re-opened this discussion
Repeat
This is the current formula for customer service (delivered electronically) these days. Drives me up the flippin' wall.CSRs: your customer's problem is not resolved when you are satisfied.
A. don't know their systems well enough to know how to make it ssl B. don't know Glyph
WTF?
"Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood." changes the entire tone of the post. It's not like this is even hard to fix.
(I realize there is a risk of sending a mob by linking to his personal page, but I think there is evidence he is indeed "intelligent" and simply misunderstood this particular piece of the puzzle. He just need a bit more humility.)
I believe Tender designed it this way because, at least in our experience, 99% of the time after we reply, we never hear from the OP again. So by always closing the discussion after we answer, it keeps our queue clean and lets us clearly see what discussions are still open awaiting our response.
Anyone can always re-open the discussion if they feel they have more to add. It's not meant in any way to try to discourage discussion. We could just delete it if that's what we had wanted to do. :)
Having read your post I can see the merits but if I were a user who does not know about your workflow it would make me very angry.
Why can you just not have the ticket auto-close after your reply and X days have passed, you can change your internal list to only show tickets that are open and last updated to by the customer?
Anyway, I still stand by it, in my reply to the previous comment that maybe the user had misunderstood what they meant by security, and I backed my argument with the words of the service provider's representative.
Edit: Just received a response to a PM, we're no longer on their shitlist :)