42 ms·
If the cost of an SSL certificate is a barrier for you to compete, you should probably do something else.
by natrius 11y ago
If the cost of an SSL certificate is a barrier for you to compete, you should probably do something else.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoCan you still serve a static site from AWS' S3 with an SSL cert? Last time I checked, you can't unless you use Cloudfront in front of it.
- teraflop 11y agoAFAIK, you can't serve pages from S3 over HTTPS using your own domain name, but https://bucketname.s3.amazonaws.com/ https://bucketname.s3.amazonaws.com/ works fine. So if you have some other way of serving your HTML pages, you can include other static assets directly from S3 without triggering browser mixed-content warnings.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- angersock 11y agoThat's kind of a shitty thing to say, and is pretty much in direct conflict with the notion of a distributed and open internet. I'm saddened that you are so economically prejudiced against potential content creators.
- im3w1l 11y agoIt just takes a tiny cost to turn off bright 10 year olds from experimenting.
- adventured 11y agoCloudflare's free plan has SSL now, which a 10 year could utilize. While that opens up a potential MITM attack, I don't believe it's worse than having no SSL at all (others argue it is, on the premise that it creates a false sense of security).
- Spivak 11y agoAmateur web development shouldn't depend on having an account with a 3rd party service which can arbitrarily decide whether or not to sign your cert.
- MichaelGG 11y agoWell you still depend on 3rd parties to register a domain. And one to provide a connection, if not a server.
- dijit 11y ago/etc/hosts when I was experimenting with computers I had a WAMP executable on my LAN. less parties involved the better.
- Dylan16807 11y agoLocalhost will not be restricted. If you're making people edit their hosts file you can make them bypass any security warnings.
- paulmd 11y agoGenerate and install your own CA root certificate. Boom, free.