Looking at https://letsencrypt.org/docs/certificates-for-localhost/ they mention that "modern" browsers let you make insecure connections to 127.0.0.1. Tested locally with a secure website connecting to ws://127.0.0.1 and it works fine. Which browsers do or don't support it I'm not sure though, but it could be enough for your use-case?
Mårten ________________________________________ From: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Alexander Carôt <alexander_ca...@gmx.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 09:51 To: Alexander Carôt Cc: Thiago Macieira; interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] wss:// on localhost >> A conventional html page (classical web browser) launches a websocket via >> wss://localhost:1234 and connects to a Qt >application which hosts a QtWebsocket Server which binds to localhost:1234. >This way I achieve communication between browser >>and app. Would love to stay with ws:// but modern CMS (well - websites in >>general) etc. require using SSL and mixed content is >>not working anymore. 1) For now I do accept that wss://localhost:wxyz is not possible because 2) I identified a workaround: Rather than a websocket I create a UDP socket on localhost and choose WebRTC within the browser in order to send UDP messages. 3) Is it worth doing further discussion about wss://localhost.abcd or do we have to accept also in the long term ? It would be a shame because it's such a convenient solution. 4) It's also a shame how the Internet has become - I still have a mindset of the year 2000 where the web was not really a significant resource of criminal intent. I understand this can lead to misunderstanding ;-) 5) Thanks for all the comments - I actually learnt a lot regarding security ! Best Alex _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
