Marking HTTP as Non-Secure

Re:Marking HTTP as Non-Secure by unethical_ban on Saturday December 13, 2014 @02:17PM (#8746029)

I understand the principle, but let's not get to philosophical about this: You ran reddit's servers and worked at netflix in their availability department. Cut out a morning coffee and you have enough money to run SSL.

SNI works with anyone on Windows > XP, and any mobile / Apple / Linux OS you'll find visiting your site. How many IE6/XP hits does your site get per month?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marking HTTP as Non-Secure by bad_user on Saturday December 13, 2014 @03:25PM (#8746284)

Even on Windows XP, it is only IExplorer that doesn't do SNI. Chrome or Firefox have no problem.

The bigger problem right now is Android 2.x. But the lifetime of phones is only about 2 years and the market-share of Android 2.x has dropped below 20%.

And it really depends on the audience. The market share of all IExplorer versions on my blog is less than 4%, out of which IExplorer 11 represents more than half of that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marking HTTP as Non-Secure by magicalist on Saturday December 13, 2014 @04:10PM (#8746426)

> The bigger problem right now is Android 2.x. But the lifetime of phones is only about 2 years and the market-share of Android 2.x has dropped below 20%.

Below 10% even[1]. Agreed on device lifetime. Unlike PCs that can stick it out much longer, give it another year and it'll be well below IE6 levels. Can't come soon enough.

[1] https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marking HTTP as Non-Secure by hayksaakian on Saturday December 13, 2014 @03:09PM (#8746203)

The problem here is that increasing the difficulty or learning curve of a system is always unpopular.

If SSL was truley as trivial as a check box, then we would see very wide adoption.

[ Parent | on HN ]