13 ms·

$1.99 SSL certificates offered by Namecheap

195 points by vially 12y ago

mkonecny 12y ago
FYI, these do not allow you to specify a wildcard, and SSL protect your subdomains.
- korzun 12y ago
  Why would a $5 certificate allow wildcards?
  - evv 12y ago
    You're right that issued wildcard certs are typically quite expensive, starting around $100/yr. But a wildcard is not difficult for anyone to implement- it is literally just adding an asterisk to the host name in the cert. Nothing beats the profit margins of the SSL industry.
    - korzun 12y ago
      Heh, compared to prices back in the day (2000~) the current prices are extremely competitive. I remember breaking a piggy bank to secure a single domain back then, it was around $99+. Then dropped to $49.99 and now it's $9.99.
    - Artemis2 12y ago
      The SSL industry is so broken...
      - spacefight 12y ago
        Depends on which side you are ;) I agree though, it's totally broken, but not only the industry, the whole SSL system is broken.
        syntaxgoonoo 12y ago
        Please explain?
  - mkonecny 12y ago
    A few years ago you might also ask why would anyone give out $5 certificates? It's not any more work on their part - it's a extra parameter sent to their certificate generator.
    - spacefight 12y ago
      It's not even an extra parameter, it's just an the wildcard domain prefix .* within the DN to set. Wildcard SSL certs are THE rip-off...
      - adamtj 12y ago
        Rip-off? Bah! That's nothing compared to Microsoft's SQL Server! With SSL, you have to add the asterisk for more functionality. It takes a bit more work and they charge you 10x the price. With SQL Server, you can get the Express Edition for $0 or the Enterprise Edition for $thousands. But to build the Enterprise Edition, they actually compile it from the same source code without some #defines that enable various Express Edition data size limits. They do less work yet charge you infinity times the price. Now that's a ripoff!
- gst 12y ago
  Given that almost all clients support SNI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication) nowadays, there's not really a need anymore for wildcard certificates (if all you want to do is enable a few subdomains).
  - brunoqc 12y ago
    With SNI do you still need one certificate for each subdomain?
    - andrewmunsell 12y ago
      Yes. SNI just allows you to have multiple SSL certificates per server IP address.
      - brunoqc 12y ago
        I have multiples vhosts per IP with nginx and SSL. Does it use SNI and does that mean that some older browsers could have problems accessing it?
        gst 12y ago
        Yes to both questions (under the assumption that those vhosts use different SSL certificates).
        brunoqc 12y ago
        Thanks!
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    Unfortunately, Android 2.3 phones are still sold on big quantities, and don't support SNI. Maybe you can just ignore them, or maybe you can't. Anyway, it's not a no-brainer.
    - 12y ago
tedunangst 12y ago
So my choices are "perfect for securing low-volume e-commerce sites" or "great for securing small- to medium-sized sites with limited traffic". How do I choose? What happens when I exceed a limited amount of traffic?
- abruzzi 12y ago
  I had the same question. What about one cert makes it better than the other?
- korzun 12y ago
  I don't think it's traffic based, most likely they base it on: A) Maximum insurance offered and B) Making sure they do not miss out on $$$ from a big customer who signs up for $5 certificate
- hackerboos 12y ago
  There's no quota on traffic for an SSL cert.
- andrewmunsell 12y ago
  I'm guessing that these "limits" actually are just marketing-speak that refer to a couple of things that are more suited to smaller/medium sized sizes: - Warranty amount ($10k on the PositiveSSL certificate) - Single domain - Only domain validation Larger e-commerce stores may need wildcard or multiple domain certificates, a higher warranty amount, organization, or extended validation (the green bar in the address bar). There isn't any inherent limitation to bandwidth or traffic with these certificates.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    I never understood the thing with the warranty at all. Isn't it just a marketing gag? Or has anyone ever been able to claim the money from a CA for whatever reason?
    - tedivm 12y ago
swampangel 12y ago
"Renewals available at regular price." Their regular prices aren't expensive -- $9.78 for Comodo PositiveSSL and $11.90 for Geotrust RapidSSL. But it would be nice to have a moderate recurring discount instead of a one-time break.
- arkad 12y ago
  What about buying the $1.99 at Namecheap and renewing it with other Certificate bought on other site? Anyone know if that would be possible?
  - zymhan 12y ago
    From the site: "Promotional SSL certificates may not be used to renew other SSL certificates."
  - kamaln7 12y ago
    Yes, that's definitely possible. You can switch out the cert with a newer one from another site and it would work just fine.
jvehent 12y ago
http://startssl.com/ http://startssl.com/ . $0/year. No bullshit.
- pdw 12y ago
  Well, as long as you don't want to revoke your certificate...
  - mkonecny 12y ago
    Yep, costs some money to revoke, and in light of heartbleed, they probably made some money. But I like the fact I can re-issue unlimited certificates forever, and pay for revocation only when the rare heartbleed-like vulnerability happens.
- iancarroll 12y ago
  $60 if you want to use it commercially...
  - xcrunner529 12y ago
    Yep. cannot be used commercially. People forget that.
  - techsupporter 12y ago
    $120 if you want to use a business name. $60 for individual validation (that's a pain in the hind end) and $60 for business name (which involves handing over tax records and private information about business operators).
    - mmastrac 12y ago
      I didn't have to hand over private information beyond my address -- I sent them my incorporation records and a way to verify the company existed in the public register. I completed the entire business validation in a single night.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
arpstick 12y ago
I think this is a really good example of how the ssl CA system is fundamentally broken.
- syntaxgoonoo 12y ago
  Please explain?
  - itistoday2 12y ago
    See my reply next to your comment. Also: "Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated, so the padlock is completely misleading." From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503
    - gnopgnip 12y ago
      This system is very inefficient. So inefficient that it would not be useable on mobile devices, and you would have to trust a 3rd party to verify websites for you. >Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated CA-signed certs are authenticated by the certificate authority. You cannot trust that a website presenting itself as google, is google, without any prior information. But google can get a certificate issued by a ca, and you can trust the ca. Why do you think ca signed certs are not securely authenticated?
      - itistoday2 12y ago
        > This system is very inefficient. So inefficient that it would not be useable on mobile devices, and you would have to trust a 3rd party to verify websites for you. It sounds like you're thinking about running a blockchain node locally. DNSChain is exactly fixing that issue. It is even more efficient than the current system. > A-signed certs are authenticated by the certificate authority. Incorrect, CA-signed certs are authenticated by any certificate authority. > Why do you think ca signed certs are not securely authenticated? Your answer is in the link that I posted. Here it is again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503
evanfftf 12y ago
Thanks Namecheap for helping Reset the Net! Please encourage other sites, companies and services you use to join too: http://resetthenet.org http://resetthenet.org
devmach 12y ago
NOT related with their ssl campaign but : What are the other trust able alternatives to Namecheap? I love them but after they "updated" their design, every time i try to buy/renew domains I'm having nervous breakdown : * It's impossible to find what I'm looking for. * Facebook style panel menu ( I don't know how they calling it ) makes only sense on tablets/phones, on desktop it's just pain... * New design uses screen real estate really bad. My screen filled with big buttons, big texts and senseless images... Information that I'm looking for is lost between them. * Gray text on white background... Not so readable...
- javajosh 12y ago
  Agreed. I needed to update the email address on my account and it took me 5 minutes of focused searching to figure it out.
- warbiscuit 12y ago
  I've had good experiences with name.com, price and service -wise ... the frontpage isn't as slick, but once logged in the UI is nicer. Have yet to see a registrar with an actual good interface though :|
  - tamar 12y ago
    Namecheap's backend UI will be upgraded soon :)
  - mamurphy 12y ago
    I recently tried out badger.com, and I like their UI. They have a demo of their UI you can try before buying. They also offer some nifty built-ins like automatic Heroku integration.
- tamar 12y ago
  ssls.com is another trusted alternative...and it's owned by Namecheap with a different design. Curious - are you still encountering those issues? That may be from the initial launch in January but we haven't heard about this from others. We definitely appreciate the feedback though. Tamar, Namecheap's Community Manager
anilshanbhag 12y ago
I just bought SSL certificate for $9.99 yesterday. Wish I had seen this earlier. From my bit of research, among all the providers, SSL certificates from namecheap were the cheapest.
karthikkolli 12y ago
It is interesting that namecheap website uses verisign signed certificates
lhgaghl 12y ago
> Reset the Net > Your SSL purchase helps fund the fight for online privacy WTF kind of joke is this? I don't even...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

195 points by vially 12y ago

mkonecny 12y ago

FYI, these do not allow you to specify a wildcard, and SSL protect your subdomains.

korzun 12y ago
Why would a $5 certificate allow wildcards?
- evv 12y ago
  You're right that issued wildcard certs are typically quite expensive, starting around $100/yr. But a wildcard is not difficult for anyone to implement- it is literally just adding an asterisk to the host name in the cert. Nothing beats the profit margins of the SSL industry.
  - korzun 12y ago
    Heh, compared to prices back in the day (2000~) the current prices are extremely competitive. I remember breaking a piggy bank to secure a single domain back then, it was around $99+. Then dropped to $49.99 and now it's $9.99.
  - Artemis2 12y ago
    The SSL industry is so broken...
    - spacefight 12y ago
      Depends on which side you are ;) I agree though, it's totally broken, but not only the industry, the whole SSL system is broken.
      - syntaxgoonoo 12y ago
        Please explain?
- mkonecny 12y ago
  A few years ago you might also ask why would anyone give out $5 certificates? It's not any more work on their part - it's a extra parameter sent to their certificate generator.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    It's not even an extra parameter, it's just an the wildcard domain prefix .* within the DN to set. Wildcard SSL certs are THE rip-off...
    - adamtj 12y ago
      Rip-off? Bah! That's nothing compared to Microsoft's SQL Server! With SSL, you have to add the asterisk for more functionality. It takes a bit more work and they charge you 10x the price. With SQL Server, you can get the Express Edition for $0 or the Enterprise Edition for $thousands. But to build the Enterprise Edition, they actually compile it from the same source code without some #defines that enable various Express Edition data size limits. They do less work yet charge you infinity times the price. Now that's a ripoff!
gst 12y ago
Given that almost all clients support SNI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication) nowadays, there's not really a need anymore for wildcard certificates (if all you want to do is enable a few subdomains).
- brunoqc 12y ago
  With SNI do you still need one certificate for each subdomain?
  - andrewmunsell 12y ago
    Yes. SNI just allows you to have multiple SSL certificates per server IP address.
    - brunoqc 12y ago
      I have multiples vhosts per IP with nginx and SSL. Does it use SNI and does that mean that some older browsers could have problems accessing it?
      - gst 12y ago
        Yes to both questions (under the assumption that those vhosts use different SSL certificates).
        brunoqc 12y ago
        Thanks!
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  Unfortunately, Android 2.3 phones are still sold on big quantities, and don't support SNI. Maybe you can just ignore them, or maybe you can't. Anyway, it's not a no-brainer.
  - 12y ago

tedunangst 12y ago

So my choices are "perfect for securing low-volume e-commerce sites" or "great for securing small- to medium-sized sites with limited traffic". How do I choose? What happens when I exceed a limited amount of traffic?

abruzzi 12y ago
I had the same question. What about one cert makes it better than the other?
korzun 12y ago
I don't think it's traffic based, most likely they base it on: A) Maximum insurance offered and B) Making sure they do not miss out on $$$ from a big customer who signs up for $5 certificate
hackerboos 12y ago
There's no quota on traffic for an SSL cert.
andrewmunsell 12y ago
I'm guessing that these "limits" actually are just marketing-speak that refer to a couple of things that are more suited to smaller/medium sized sizes: - Warranty amount ($10k on the PositiveSSL certificate) - Single domain - Only domain validation Larger e-commerce stores may need wildcard or multiple domain certificates, a higher warranty amount, organization, or extended validation (the green bar in the address bar). There isn't any inherent limitation to bandwidth or traffic with these certificates.
- spacefight 12y ago
  I never understood the thing with the warranty at all. Isn't it just a marketing gag? Or has anyone ever been able to claim the money from a CA for whatever reason?
  - tedivm 12y ago

swampangel 12y ago

"Renewals available at regular price." Their regular prices aren't expensive -- $9.78 for Comodo PositiveSSL and $11.90 for Geotrust RapidSSL. But it would be nice to have a moderate recurring discount instead of a one-time break.

arkad 12y ago
What about buying the $1.99 at Namecheap and renewing it with other Certificate bought on other site? Anyone know if that would be possible?
- zymhan 12y ago
  From the site: "Promotional SSL certificates may not be used to renew other SSL certificates."
- kamaln7 12y ago
  Yes, that's definitely possible. You can switch out the cert with a newer one from another site and it would work just fine.

jvehent 12y ago

http://startssl.com/ http://startssl.com/ . $0/year. No bullshit.

pdw 12y ago
Well, as long as you don't want to revoke your certificate...
- mkonecny 12y ago
  Yep, costs some money to revoke, and in light of heartbleed, they probably made some money. But I like the fact I can re-issue unlimited certificates forever, and pay for revocation only when the rare heartbleed-like vulnerability happens.
iancarroll 12y ago
$60 if you want to use it commercially...
- xcrunner529 12y ago
  Yep. cannot be used commercially. People forget that.
- techsupporter 12y ago
  $120 if you want to use a business name. $60 for individual validation (that's a pain in the hind end) and $60 for business name (which involves handing over tax records and private information about business operators).
  - mmastrac 12y ago
    I didn't have to hand over private information beyond my address -- I sent them my incorporation records and a way to verify the company existed in the public register. I completed the entire business validation in a single night.
ceejayoz 12y ago

arpstick 12y ago

I think this is a really good example of how the ssl CA system is fundamentally broken.

syntaxgoonoo 12y ago
Please explain?
- itistoday2 12y ago
  See my reply next to your comment. Also: "Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated, so the padlock is completely misleading." From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503
  - gnopgnip 12y ago
    This system is very inefficient. So inefficient that it would not be useable on mobile devices, and you would have to trust a 3rd party to verify websites for you. >Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated CA-signed certs are authenticated by the certificate authority. You cannot trust that a website presenting itself as google, is google, without any prior information. But google can get a certificate issued by a ca, and you can trust the ca. Why do you think ca signed certs are not securely authenticated?
    - itistoday2 12y ago
      > This system is very inefficient. So inefficient that it would not be useable on mobile devices, and you would have to trust a 3rd party to verify websites for you. It sounds like you're thinking about running a blockchain node locally. DNSChain is exactly fixing that issue. It is even more efficient than the current system. > A-signed certs are authenticated by the certificate authority. Incorrect, CA-signed certs are authenticated by any certificate authority. > Why do you think ca signed certs are not securely authenticated? Your answer is in the link that I posted. Here it is again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826503

evanfftf 12y ago

Thanks Namecheap for helping Reset the Net! Please encourage other sites, companies and services you use to join too: http://resetthenet.org http://resetthenet.org

devmach 12y ago

NOT related with their ssl campaign but : What are the other trust able alternatives to Namecheap? I love them but after they "updated" their design, every time i try to buy/renew domains I'm having nervous breakdown : * It's impossible to find what I'm looking for. * Facebook style panel menu ( I don't know how they calling it ) makes only sense on tablets/phones, on desktop it's just pain... * New design uses screen real estate really bad. My screen filled with big buttons, big texts and senseless images... Information that I'm looking for is lost between them. * Gray text on white background... Not so readable...

javajosh 12y ago
Agreed. I needed to update the email address on my account and it took me 5 minutes of focused searching to figure it out.
warbiscuit 12y ago
I've had good experiences with name.com, price and service -wise ... the frontpage isn't as slick, but once logged in the UI is nicer. Have yet to see a registrar with an actual good interface though :|
- tamar 12y ago
  Namecheap's backend UI will be upgraded soon :)
- mamurphy 12y ago
  I recently tried out badger.com, and I like their UI. They have a demo of their UI you can try before buying. They also offer some nifty built-ins like automatic Heroku integration.
tamar 12y ago
ssls.com is another trusted alternative...and it's owned by Namecheap with a different design. Curious - are you still encountering those issues? That may be from the initial launch in January but we haven't heard about this from others. We definitely appreciate the feedback though. Tamar, Namecheap's Community Manager

anilshanbhag 12y ago

I just bought SSL certificate for $9.99 yesterday. Wish I had seen this earlier. From my bit of research, among all the providers, SSL certificates from namecheap were the cheapest.

karthikkolli 12y ago

It is interesting that namecheap website uses verisign signed certificates

lhgaghl 12y ago

> Reset the Net > Your SSL purchase helps fund the fight for online privacy WTF kind of joke is this? I don't even...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]