Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yeah, I'm not opposed to HTTPS. In fact, the reason I get frustrated is because, like you, I've dealt with it at scale for years. I agree it should be used most places, but what about static documentation sites? What about blogs? I've even used Let's Encrypt a few times, and it seems like a great service. But who wants to set up that machinery for a simple resume site?

That machinery has a cost. With every barrier we throw up on the web, it makes it harder to build a reliable site. I also realize this is an argument I've lost. It's so much easier to just say "HTTPS everywhere" than to examine the tradeoffs.

Oh well.

> It's so much easier to just say "HTTPS everywhere" than to examine the tradeoffs.

This touches on the real point of all this, which doesn't seem to have been contained in any replies to you.

There's no real choice in the matter, https is a requirement if, and that the very big if right there, we truly acknowledge that the network is hostile. With a hostile network the only option is to distrust all non-secure communication.

https isn't about securing the site as you know, it's about securing the transmission of data over the transport layer, and it's needed because the network is hostile.

It doesn't matter one little iota what the data is that's traversing it, as there's no way to determine its importance ahead of time. A resume site might not be of much worth to the creator, but the ecosystem as a whole ends up having to distrust it without a secure transport layer because the hostile network could have altered it.

It doesn't matter the effect of that alteration might be inconsequential, as there's also no way to determine that effect ahead of time. The ecosystems 'defense' is to distrust it entirely.

And that's the situation the browsers/users/all of us are left with. There's is no option but to distrust non-secured communication if the network is hostile.

Yeah, it is an argument you've lost, because it's a bad argument.

Even places like dreamhost give you a letsencrypt cert for free on any domain.

There is no case to be made for not securing your site, on principle or based on what's already happening out in the world, with shady providers injecting code into non-secure HTTP connections.

You see it as "a simple resume site," and I see it as a conduit for malicious providers to inject malicious code. Good on the browser folks for pushing back on you.

Yup, the Dreamhost model, and the model at generic cPanel sites (sadly some places with cPanel disable this to drive revenue to their commercial CA partner) is the Right Thing here - one of the options when setting up or modifying your web site is "Free automatic certificates" and then it's the Host's job to make sure that stays working, just like if you pick "Use latest PHP" or "Strip leading www. from hostname". The guy with a blog about carpentry shouldn't need to care about the ACME protocol any more than he cares about how erbium doped optical amplifiers work when calling his grandmother half way around the world. It's just technology.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact