3 ms·

> You can't, at least not without using a different service that works exactly like CloudFlare (which would obviously defeat the point). You probably shouldn't

by K0nserv 10y ago

> You can't, at least not without using a different service that works exactly like CloudFlare (which would obviously defeat the point). You probably shouldn't be hosting your site on S3 to begin with (this isn't what it's for, really), and you wouldn't have this problem in the first place. I understand your point about CloudFlare as an intermediary for SSL not being ideal and I agree. On the S3 issue I quite strongly disagree, if you have a site that updates infrequently and can be compiled as static files S3 is one of the absolute best choices because it's cheap and requires you to manage no infrastructure at all. It is indeed one of the things it is for, they wouldn't have a public website checkbox if that wasn't the case. > Use Caddy, which does this all automatically without you even having to think about it. Again this has the prerequisite of maintaining infrastructure which needs to be kept up to date and secure. It's also massively more expensive than S3 for my use case.

joepie91_ 10y ago
> S3 is one of the absolute best choices because it's cheap and requires you to manage no infrastructure at all ... and there is no possibility of ever having proper TLS, with or without CloudFlare. That alone disqualifies it as "best". It simply doesn't meet minimum requirements. > Again this has the prerequisite of maintaining infrastructure which needs to be kept up to date and secure. It's also massively more expensive than S3 for my use case. What are you paying for S3, currently?
- K0nserv 10y ago
  > ... and there is no possibility of ever having proper TLS, with or without CloudFlare. That alone disqualifies it as "best". It simply doesn't meet minimum requirements. I'd argue that using CloudFront for SSL termination would be slightly better, but ultimately even just running an EC2 instance implies trusting Amazon and giving them power to intercept and mess with your traffic. So I guess with CloudFlare the only difference is you are trusting one more entity that could screw you over. So you end up trusting both Amazon and CloudFlare. > What are you paying for S3, currently? I pay roughly $0.03/month so switching to something like a DO droplet($5/month) would increase cost by 16566%, increase labour required and make the site less stable and more vulnerable to hug of death scenarios.

by K0nserv 10y ago

joepie91_ 10y ago

> S3 is one of the absolute best choices because it's cheap and requires you to manage no infrastructure at all ... and there is no possibility of ever having proper TLS, with or without CloudFlare. That alone disqualifies it as "best". It simply doesn't meet minimum requirements. > Again this has the prerequisite of maintaining infrastructure which needs to be kept up to date and secure. It's also massively more expensive than S3 for my use case. What are you paying for S3, currently?

K0nserv 10y ago
> ... and there is no possibility of ever having proper TLS, with or without CloudFlare. That alone disqualifies it as "best". It simply doesn't meet minimum requirements. I'd argue that using CloudFront for SSL termination would be slightly better, but ultimately even just running an EC2 instance implies trusting Amazon and giving them power to intercept and mess with your traffic. So I guess with CloudFlare the only difference is you are trusting one more entity that could screw you over. So you end up trusting both Amazon and CloudFlare. > What are you paying for S3, currently? I pay roughly $0.03/month so switching to something like a DO droplet($5/month) would increase cost by 16566%, increase labour required and make the site less stable and more vulnerable to hug of death scenarios.