6 ms·
I recently bought a PositiveSSL certificate for less than $3 per year at gogetssl.com. That's less than one third of what I paid for the domain to use it on. If
by kijin 13y ago
I recently bought a PositiveSSL certificate for less than $3 per year at gogetssl.com. That's less than one third of what I paid for the domain to use it on. If you can afford a domain, you can afford to put a SSL certificate on it.
Low-cost SSL brands like PositiveSSL and RapidSSL are so cheap nowadays, some registrars hand them out for free if you buy a domain. And they're compatible with every version of IE on Windows XP, unlike those free certs from StartSSL.
- mtrimpe 13y agoAnd what about wildcard certificates?
- kijin 13y agoThe good ol' Subdomain-versus-Subfolder debate just gets a bit more expensive on the left side, that's all. Services that really need an unlimited number of subdomains are a tiny minority, and market prices reflect this. For the time being, someone like WordPress.com can probably afford $60-$100/year for a wildcard certificate. Everyone else just sticks to subfolders like Twitter does. After all, nobody will be preventing you from running a website. Your priorities and economic circumstances might prevent you from using pretty subdomains, but that's no different from the current reality where short and memorable dot-com domains cost thousands of dollars.
- pixelcort 13y agoThe cost usually isn't so much the cost of the cert, it's more the cost of the static IP.
- johntb86 13y agoWhat browser would support HTTP 2.0 but not SNI?
- jalada 13y agoI'd not heard of SNI before. Is this something that can be used now?!
- kijin 13y agoYes ... as long as you don't need to support IE on XP, Android 2.x, or Java 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
- Macha 13y ago> IE on XP, Android 2.x That's still a lot of devices.
- Xylakant 13y agoNeither of those browsers supports HTTP/2.0, so that's moot.
- acdha 13y ago> IE on XP In this case, that's also going away hard next year when Microsoft discontinues support for Windows XP. At that point it'd be really tempting to suggest switching to Firefox or Chrome, both of which do support SNI.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- nfoz 13y agoLots of utilities that aren't conventional "browsers" but talk HTTP.
- mikeash 13y agoThe question is still completely valid. What tool would support HTTP 2 but not SNI?
- millerm 13y agoIf we'd get to it and get IPv6 up, the business of selling static IPs should become a very unprofitable as there would be a virtually unlimited supply of IPs. Why is this not happening?!?
- RobAley 13y agoFor the same reason that SSL adoption is currently lower than ideal, for many uses the increased cost (actual cost, and cost of time) is not perceived to be worth it. For many/most uses IPv4 works just fine and non-SSL is just fine.
- IgorPartola 13y agoIPv6 is free as in 4 billion ^ 4 addresses free.
- KMag 13y agoPresuming you're noting exponentiation with ^, 4 billion ^ 4 billion addresses would mean 128 gigabits per address. IPv6 addresses don't take up half a gigabyte each in any sane encoding. IPv6 has 128-bit addresses, which works out to about 4 billion ^ 4 addresses, not 4 billion ^ 4 billion addresses.
- IgorPartola 13y agoMy original comment said 4 billion ^ 4 addresses, as in 2^128. There is no second "billion" in that line.
- sophacles 13y agoDon't forget the cost and barrier to entry of setting up the cert and SSL and learning to administer the extra steps well, without introducing more holes through complexity.
- danielweber 13y agoWhat about embedded devices. Not everything on the web is sitting on a well-known server.
- sophacles 13y agoRight - embedded devices, one off toy apps, a lot of internal organization pages, and a lot of hobbiest projects make up a huge part of the "web space". These will all suffer for more reasons than cost of certs - it adds a new hurdle and a barrier for entry. Think about printers for a moment: now all the printers providing http interfaces need to include a way to install an organizational cert on them (at least for a lot of organizations). That means that there needs to be an out of band step in setup (and maintenance) to add the cert, or a way to do so from an http interface. The later just screams "giant security risk" for a dozen reasons.
- sigzero 13y agoI am sure it happens but you should not be exposing your printer to the Internet. That is just asking for trouble. You would not need HTTPS on an internal network.
- munificent 13y ago> You would not need HTTPS on an internal network. Oh, really? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...
- pantalaimon 13y agoBut HTTP 2 requires it, no matter if you need it or not.
- agos 13y agoNo, it doesn't. From the article: “To be clear - we will still define how to use HTTP/2.0 with http:// http:// URIs, because in some use cases, an implementer may make an informed choice to use the protocol without encryption.”
- Zoomla 13y agoDomain names at that price should include an SSL certificate.
- yuhong 13y agoAnd they're compatible with every version of IE on Windows XP, unlike those free certs from StartSSL. This matter has nothing to do with the version of IE and everything to do with whether Windows root cert update is turned on.