6 ms·
$50 comodo wildcard SSLs (while they last)
- aioprisan 14y agojust got an essential SSL for $49.99 for a year, limit 10 per customer, half price. Also you can get an EV cert for $50-60.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- aioprisan 14y agothat is, a wildcard SSL
- jacquesm 14y agoBefore you jump at this, research the reputation of your SSL certificate provider. https://www.google.com/search?q=comodo+reputation https://www.google.com/search?q=comodo+reputation $50 is a pretty good price, the nearest competitor is charging about double that. Still, if you are going for a wildcard SSL certificate (and you already need one even if you just want to respond to www.example.com and example.com using https) then likely the $50 is a rounding error on your annual expenses. It's good to be frugal, and if you feel that comodo is good enough for you then this is as cheap as it gets.
- aioprisan 14y agoactually you can get alphassl for $40-50 as well. Comodo is pretty good for the price range. You can pay a bit more for a GeoTrust or an arm and a leg for Thawte or VeriSign, but there is no difference between all these SSL. It's purely marketing BS.
- jacquesm 14y ago> It's purely marketing BS. It's worse than that. SSL certificates are simply just another racket, and they're a lot more expensive than domain names. There is no added value from having a certificate from some authority or other beyond the knowledge that your bits are encrypted, the checks performed (even for the high end ones) are perfunctory and users put far more trust into little lock icons or green bars than is warranted. That said, if your cert provider is hacked it can be a real pain.
- aioprisan 14y agoI agree, although having one from a trusted authority is better than not having one. And customers come to expect that you have SSLs installed. Never mind if the data at rest is actually encrypted..
- taneliv 14y agoTheir site has them at $149 (single domain certs are $49). StartSSL offers the wildcard ones at $59. Like Comodo, not everyone trusts them (however, browsers do). Would be delighted to learn of a cheaper wildcard cert.
- aioprisan 14y agoYes, even RSA had it's share of breaches. From a customer perspective, it'll show the lock even on mobile devices, which I've found others to be lacking in (looking at you, RapidSSL)
- fomojola 14y agoHad similar problems with RapidSSL (not the wildcards, the regular ones) and it turned out you have to include a cross root CA that chains to a Geotrust intermediate CA (my terminology may not be quite right, but it certainly worked for me). Its been a while since I did it but there's a pointer on how to get it done here: http://support.servertastic.com/rapidssl-and-geotrust-certificate-not-trusted-on-mobile-device/ http://support.servertastic.com/rapidssl-and-geotrust-certif...
- mjpa 14y agoYou don't need a wildcard for domain.com + www.domain.com. I've got several cheap (~$7) certificates that have both listed
- StavrosK 14y agoThe StartSSL free ones do this too, I have them on all my domains.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- darklajid 14y agoSee mjpa: For most cases this should be covered by SubjectAltNames [1]. That means for simple cases you might even get away with free StartSSL certificates (ignoring the limitation to one year). If you ask for one for 'www.example.com' you'll get one with SubjectAltName example.com. Maybe (not sure) some $#^@# clients don't support that, though? For personal stuff I'd still stick to this solution instead of shelling out $50. 1: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5935369/ssl-how-do-common-names-cn-and-subject-alternative-names-san-work-together http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5935369/ssl-how-do-common...
- ck2 14y agoWhat about StartSSL at $60 for two years for wildcard and multiple domains? https://www.startssl.com/?app=40 https://www.startssl.com/?app=40 Multiple Domains (UCC) Wild Card Capability Supported by all modern browsers.
- aioprisan 14y agoI've tried to sign up a few times and I've never been able to, either my browsers crashed or timed out forever. I believe they also offer free SSLs
- imaginator 14y agoStartSSL uses client side certificates to authenticate you. Last time I checked this only worked in Firefox. Perhaps that is the reason for your crashing.
- joch 14y agoClient certificates should work in all modern browsers. We use them daily in Chrome, Safari, Mobile Safari, IE and Firefox.
- mcbridematt 14y agoChrome is reliant on the host OS certificate stack, unfortunately Chrome and client certificates don't seem to work well on OS X for this reason. Safari works, however.
- aioprisan 14y agobtw it fails on latest chrome and firefox on mac but works great on IE 8/9
- techsupporter 14y agoIt would be nice if they had any sort of flexibility in their identity validation. Not all of us keep identification cards with addresses on them[0] or a telephone number billed in a traditional manner[1]. 0 - United States Passport Card, for instance. 1 - VoIP.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sliverstorm 14y agoOnly slightly?
- UnoriginalGuy 14y agoDoes anyone else feel like SSL certificates are a giant scam? Companies like Microsoft are king-makers so they essentially get to pick and choose who gets to be a "trusted" certificate authority, and therefore we wind up with a competition-less market. Many of these companies claim this excess cost (over the technical costs which are low) are the result of having to verify people are who they say they are. But in my experience, from buying certificates, certificate authorities never do this (or at least don't manually do it). In fact Amazon did far more verification when I signed up to AWS than any certificate authority ever has... They also charge more for different kinds of certificates (e.g. like this "sale") even if their costs are identical. This is just a nonsense way to up-sell a product that already has a markup likely in the thousands of percentage. Honestly any SSL certificate which costs more than $5~10 is a rip-off.
- darklajid 14y agoYes. Most Linux distributions I've used recently come with a pre-configured self-signed certificate called 'snakeoil'. I'm not sure if the 5-10 number is really okay for a _decent_ validation process, but I'd argue that it's really, really a sign of a crappy industry if only StartSSL offers a free/cheap way to get a simple, low-trust certificate for your site. If we leave the scope of ssl and enter code-signing I'm even less happy with the trend.. There was a nice write-up on the Windows 8 'market' a while ago which complained about that stuff, among other things.
- ck2 14y agoWe need to replace certs with DANE DANE is basically SSL authentication via the cert in DNS Get rid of third parties. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dane/charter/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dane/charter/ Problem is it needs DNSSEC, but we are going to need that sooner or later anyway.
- sneak 14y agoFor this to be truly safe, we need DANE and to stop using .com/.net/.org as the US government will (demonstrably) hijack those as required without due process. DANE + DNSSEC + soverign TLDd might solve this problem - emphasis on might.
- dutchbrit 14y agoAndddddd it's gone..
- mattvot 14y agoAll sold out now. So frustrating to get to the end of your order to get the message that the coupon has expired.
- aioprisan 14y agothey run every 3 hours
- vampirechicken 14y agoIn the olden days (circa 1995) there were precious few Cert providers (Verisign, Thawte, and few others) and they vetted you, because SSL certs are about trust, not about encryption. As a result, Certs were bloody expensive. In order to get the cert for dsac.dla.mil (the computer shop inside the US Defense Logistics Agency) we provided reference to the act of Congres establishing the DLA, and then the command chain that proved that my boss had the rights/responsibility for the SSL cert for the domain. The process could take weeks, but in the end you could trust that the server on the other end was who they claimed to be. Fast forward tot he internet boom, and everybody needed a cert, and there folks realized that generating certs was physically easy, and could be lucrative, so they started selling cheaper and cheaper certs. but you can't vet an organization for 29.95, so that aspect of SSL Certs was conveniently forgotten as the masses rushed onto the web. Everybody thinks SSL Certs are about the encryption. We know that the Cert only establishes the identity of the other party. The encryption is performed using a key which is shared after the cert is used to establish trust. So now, people are starting to realize that cheap certs don't provide trust, and we're seeing $1500 vetted certs again, and browsers that change colors to signify trust levels. However, to make this personal, I have a Comodo cert that I got for free with domain registration at namecheap, and a bunch of browsers don't want to trust it. So I'm stuck between not having revenues to buy a super-cert, and having people refuse to use my app because their browser is saying my app's cert isn't trustworthy, and they aren't technical enough to override the warning. So will these $50 wildcard certs fare any better?
- nickf 14y ago...and a bunch of browsers don't want to trust it. This shouldn't be the case. My email is on my profile if you want to email me any details you can - I'll get this solved!
- vampirechicken 14y agoThanks to nickf I learned that I'd omitted certs in the chain when I did the installation. all is well now. Thanks nickf!