> I wish there was a way non-sensitive data could be transmitted plain-text, but signed with a server certificate. This solves many of the same problems, while

> I wish there was a way non-sensitive data could be transmitted plain-text, but signed with a server certificate. This solves many of the same problems, while avoiding many of the problems with HTTPS. Isn't this, more-or-less, HTTPS? I think you'd end up with something very similar as you'd likely need to solve the same problems HTTPS attempts to solve: 1. How do you know the authenticity of a message? You need some out of band channel of communication or trusted intermediary to verify anything you receive (e.g. a certifying authority) 2. How do you know when somebody's signature has changed? 3. When does a message expire? Can somebody replay a previous valid response? And stepping past a few of these implementation issues; how much overhead is HTTPS really? TLS is definitely a chatty protocol, but as I understand things that has more to do with TCP and the complexity of the CA system than the encryption itself. I like your idea of a faster HTTP variant that only guarantee message integrity rather than secrecy, but I myself can't see how you'd get there without implementing a lot of the things that makes HTTPS slower than vanilla HTTP.