5 ms·

The only thing I dislike about this is it hides the refer, screwing up my analytics. I'd have to completely convert all of my sites to HTTPS only to be able to

The only thing I dislike about this is it hides the refer, screwing up my analytics. I'd have to completely convert all of my sites to HTTPS only to be able to make use of the additional headers for analytical purposes. Not really a big deal I guess, but kind of unnecessary to have to purchase wildcard certs if you have many sub domains.

wladimir 15y ago
So google is pushing you to improve your security by doing this. Good, good :)
- RyanKearney 15y ago
  Well I mean it's my personal blog, there's really no need for https since there's no user accounts or login. Are you saying HN is insecure because they don't use https? How about Reddit, no https there either.
  - wladimir 15y ago
    Yes, HN is insecure because they don't use HTTPS. Especially when using a public WiFi network someone could hijack my session, and even intercept my password by passively sniffing packets. There is a HTTPS wrapper around HN, but it has been pretty flakey lately (lots of timeouts): https://quickhn.appspot.com/news https://quickhn.appspot.com/news I do agree that if you don't have user logins there is no real threat. The only possible 'attack' then would be an ISP injecting ads or injecting other content that you didn't write :)
dspillett 15y ago
The free certs from http://www.startssl.com/ http://www.startssl.com/ are apparently accepted by most browsers these days (the exception being IE6/7 users on XP who have not downloaded the optional CA cert updates): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startssl#StartSSL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startssl#StartSSL I've not used their cert for anything yet (I plan to test them on some personal sites when I get chance, before using them elsewhere), and wildcard certs are not free (but they do seem relatively cheap), but it might be worth looking into for someone in your position.
- thepsi 15y ago
  I've used them for a few personal sites and projects with no complaints. The fee for wildcard certs (~60USD) is a one-off to verify your identity - usually via a quick phone call to confirm details from your official documents. Once that's complete, you can generate as many certs as you need (incl. wildcards and Subject Alternative Name) from their control panel, subject to jumping through the usual hoops to prove that you have control of each domain.
  - dspillett 15y ago
    I'd not picked up that the wildcard fee was a one-off - that makes it all the more attractive.
  - RyanKearney 15y ago
    I do use StartSSL but the problem just comes from having multiple sub domains. I get IPv4 addresses for $0.50/mo/each but I'd rather not setup each subdomain on its own dedicated IP for the sakes of using free SSL certs.
    - dspillett 15y ago
      You don't need multiple IPv4 addresses to make use of a wild-card (or other multi-name) certificate. A wildcard certificate will verify any matching domain so you could have many sub-domains of the same domain (using a single certificate for *.domain.tld) on one address and browsers would not complain. Also you could run the distinct (sub)domains on different ports on the same address, though this is perhaps less useful. Also, with SNI you can use many single-name certificates on one address (and all on the same port) using SNI. Unfortunately there are a number of significant client combinations that won't play nice with this (most notably, if you can't guess, IE on Windows XP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Support
      - RyanKearney 15y ago
        I know that. I'm saying I don't want to have to pay for a wildcard certificate since you can get free certs for individual domains. The alternative for me purchasing a wildcard domain would be to get many different single domain certs for free and assign each one to a different IP address.

wladimir 15y ago

So google is pushing you to improve your security by doing this. Good, good :)

RyanKearney 15y ago
Well I mean it's my personal blog, there's really no need for https since there's no user accounts or login. Are you saying HN is insecure because they don't use https? How about Reddit, no https there either.
- wladimir 15y ago
  Yes, HN is insecure because they don't use HTTPS. Especially when using a public WiFi network someone could hijack my session, and even intercept my password by passively sniffing packets. There is a HTTPS wrapper around HN, but it has been pretty flakey lately (lots of timeouts): https://quickhn.appspot.com/news https://quickhn.appspot.com/news I do agree that if you don't have user logins there is no real threat. The only possible 'attack' then would be an ISP injecting ads or injecting other content that you didn't write :)

dspillett 15y ago

The free certs from http://www.startssl.com/ http://www.startssl.com/ are apparently accepted by most browsers these days (the exception being IE6/7 users on XP who have not downloaded the optional CA cert updates): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startssl#StartSSL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startssl#StartSSL I've not used their cert for anything yet (I plan to test them on some personal sites when I get chance, before using them elsewhere), and wildcard certs are not free (but they do seem relatively cheap), but it might be worth looking into for someone in your position.

thepsi 15y ago
I've used them for a few personal sites and projects with no complaints. The fee for wildcard certs (~60USD) is a one-off to verify your identity - usually via a quick phone call to confirm details from your official documents. Once that's complete, you can generate as many certs as you need (incl. wildcards and Subject Alternative Name) from their control panel, subject to jumping through the usual hoops to prove that you have control of each domain.
- dspillett 15y ago
  I'd not picked up that the wildcard fee was a one-off - that makes it all the more attractive.
- RyanKearney 15y ago
  I do use StartSSL but the problem just comes from having multiple sub domains. I get IPv4 addresses for $0.50/mo/each but I'd rather not setup each subdomain on its own dedicated IP for the sakes of using free SSL certs.
  - dspillett 15y ago
    You don't need multiple IPv4 addresses to make use of a wild-card (or other multi-name) certificate. A wildcard certificate will verify any matching domain so you could have many sub-domains of the same domain (using a single certificate for *.domain.tld) on one address and browsers would not complain. Also you could run the distinct (sub)domains on different ports on the same address, though this is perhaps less useful. Also, with SNI you can use many single-name certificates on one address (and all on the same port) using SNI. Unfortunately there are a number of significant client combinations that won't play nice with this (most notably, if you can't guess, IE on Windows XP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Support
    - RyanKearney 15y ago
      I know that. I'm saying I don't want to have to pay for a wildcard certificate since you can get free certs for individual domains. The alternative for me purchasing a wildcard domain would be to get many different single domain certs for free and assign each one to a different IP address.