4 ms·
Well, if cost is your main priority, then startssl.com is the obvious way to go, since it provides free certificates. This "certificates are expensive" argumen
by hobarrera 12y ago
Well, if cost is your main priority, then startssl.com is the obvious way to go, since it provides free certificates.
This "certificates are expensive" argument was only valid a decade ago, we have free certs now.
- detaro 12y agoFree as long as you never have to revoke them. Which means people primarily looking at costs are actually incentived to not revoke compromised certs.
- pornel 12y agoWhich is still waaaay better if they ran HTTP.
- detaro 12y agoI don't agree. False pretense of security can be worse than visible insecurity.
- pornel 12y ago> False pretense of security can be worse than visible insecurity. This applies to HTTP as well. That's why Firefox and Chrome will be visibly warning it's insecure.
- detaro 12y agoWhich is fine. I wasn't arguing against the changes, but against citing startssl.com as a good solution (Even though I have to admit that their service overall extremely likely has done more good than damage, I really dislike that aspect of their offering)
- hobarrera 12y agoRevoking has an actual cost itself for them too (and for all client, in the end) due to the revocation list growing. Revocation isn't part of the normal lifecyle of TLS certificates either: you'll only need this once you've had a security breach.