Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by austenallred on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @07:53AM
(#15226518)
We use cloudflare on our Github pages custom domain, so you can easily get https support that way.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by JorgeGT on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @07:56AM
(#15226526)
It is exactly what the article author suggests in fact:
> Github pages does not offer secured custom domain name. The best way to get this feature for free is to use Cloudflare.
[The article then proceeds on how exactly do that.]
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by trextrex on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @09:40AM
(#15227170)
Yes, but cloudflare issues only shared certificates (that are shared across multiple domains) on their free plan [1]. If I wanted to use a dedicated certificate I'd have to upgrade to a paid plan.
[1] https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/203349264-A...
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by thesmallestcat on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @08:17AM
(#15226638)
People need to stop calling Cloudflare's offering HTTPS support. It's snake oil.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by chrift on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @09:41AM
(#15227180)
This is the first time I've heard such claims. Do you have any more details about this?
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by sleepychu on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @11:05AM
(#15227853)
+------------------+ +------------------+ +-----------------------+
| | | | | |
| CLIENT | +----------> | CLOUDFLARE | +---------> | YOU |
| | SSL | | NOT SSL | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ +-----------------------+
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by ejcx on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @11:04AM
(#15227846)
OP will undoubtedly not have more info. It's not snake-oil. I used to work there. There's a real TLS connection.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by orf on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @09:43AM
(#15227197)
How so? Shared SSL cert is still an SSL cert. Not snake oil.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by dan1234 on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @08:32AM
(#15226703)
But doing that won't protect the route between Cloudflare and Github pages, only the route between the user and Cloudflare.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by schrodinger on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @08:38AM
(#15226757)
Wouldn't SSL via GitHub's cert protect that part?
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by xxdesmus on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @09:05AM
(#15226930)
Yes. It will.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by icebraining on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @09:55AM
(#15227260)
Not really. They have two options for protecting the "back" connection: Full SSL and Full SSL (Strict).
Full SSL doesn't really protect you since Cloudflare won't check if the certificate is valid, an attacker could make their own self-signed cert and MITM you.
Full SSL (Strict) requires a valid cert for the domain being requested. If you had that, you wouldn't need Cloudflare in the first place.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by schrodinger on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @06:13PM
(#15233406)
But the domain is github.com, which has a valid ssl cert. You only need cloudflare to get it on your own domain.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by icebraining on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @04:31AM
(#15236497)
Right, but Cloudflare doesn't actually check if the cert is valid, unless you enable Strict mode, which you can't because you'd need Github to serve a cert for your own domain.
Re:Building a fast, secured and free static site in less tha...
by schrodinger on Wednesday September 13, 2017 @11:45AM
(#15239392)
Are you sure? Wouldn't it check to see that the cert is valid for github.com, not for your own domain, since that's the origin?
Edit: Looks like you're correct. Sorry!