4 ms·
That makes sense for a hosting service. A lot of them works that way. Hosting a static free blog doesn't need TLS.
by user5994461 10y ago
That makes sense for a hosting service. A lot of them works that way. Hosting a static free blog doesn't need TLS.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago> Hosting a static free blog doesn't need TLS. Many kinds of static content need TLS, including protection from MITM and protection from eavesdroppers. Static doesn't mean "not sensitive". (Leaving aside the reasonable presumption today that all content is potentially sensitive.)
- icebraining 10y agoConsidering the amount of crap ISPs have been known to inject into websites, I disagree. TLS isn't just for encryption, it also provides data integrity.
- Godel_unicode 10y agoThis is the correct answer. Use this reasoning.
- IgorPartola 10y agoYes it does. Stop spreading this misinformation because it is dangerous. Everything should be encrypted. I don't want people knowing that I'm reading your blog or what on it I am reading.
- Jach 10y agoNow who's spreading misinformation? HTTPS doesn't protect the fact you're reading a blog (the IP of the server will be observed, and typically the server name through the cert itself) and while one can't prove which URLs of the server you visited one can infer based on the amount of traffic sent.
- samb1729 10y agoThere's a pretty significant difference between someone being able to tell, for example, that you visited medium.com, and that same someone being able to tell exactly which blog post you read because the whole request is unencrypted.
- LukeShu 10y agoBeyond just the cert itself, the client will typically announce in plaintext the hostname it is seeking to talk to, as part of SNI.