4 ms·
While I concede this is a problem for those wanting to do mass hosting of SSL, I'd hardly say that's what's holding back the secure web. Way too many devs outr
by nirvdrum 15y ago
While I concede this is a problem for those wanting to do mass hosting of SSL, I'd hardly say that's what's holding back the secure web. Way too many devs outright refuse to run on SSL in situations where it would work just fine. Some have old notions of computational overhead of encryption. Many are concerned about what SSL does to caching. It's just hyperbole to blame Microsoft for this. The note about when SNI was released is illustrative of that, since mod_ssl didn't support SNI until quite recently. Prior to that, one had to use mod_gnutls which created a whole raft of different issues.
- zokier 15y agoWell, SSL definitely incurs a performance penalty even these days when actual encrypting is relatively cheap: http://www.semicomplete.com/blog/geekery/ssl-latency.html http://www.semicomplete.com/blog/geekery/ssl-latency.html
- nirvdrum 15y agoTrue. But the argument I hear most often is that they can't run as many processes because of the SSL overhead. But, that aside, even if the latency is the problem, that's certainly not going to be solved by XP supporting SNI.