Hi All again,
What makes it so expensive to have a certificate? I mean, wouldn't it be
possible to setup a new authority that doesn't charge as much or nothing at
all? Wouldn't the major browsers be willing to support an authority that is
free or costs next to nothing? I pay about $200 a year for
German Geek wrote:
OK, i hear about this self signed certificate. Whenever i signed anything it
just came up with all these warnings in FF which confuses users and i think
is not good at all. Can someone paste a link in here to a website with a
self signed cert please? Would like to see if there
OK, i hear about this self signed certificate. Whenever i signed anything it
just came up with all these warnings in FF which confuses users and i think
is not good at all. Can someone paste a link in here to a website with a
self signed cert please? Would like to see if there are any warnings etc.
Sudheer wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sites (like mine) that don't want to pay a certificate authority can
use a self-signed cert. Even Red Hat does for some of their stuff (IE
I believe their bugzilla server)
Firefox scares its users when they encounter a website with self signed
certif
Firefox scares its users when they encounter a website with self
signed certificate. If your website users aren't worried about the
warning Firefox throws at them, self signed cert works well.
I just realized Dotan Cohen already mentioned this.
--
With warm regards,
Sudheer. S
Busines
Michael A. Peters wrote:
German Geek wrote:
Hi gang,
Was just thinking of a cheap solution for sites that don't require
absolute
security. A SSL cert cost about $150 a year. Sites like facebook
could use
this...
Sites (like mine) that don't want to pay a certificate authority can
use a se
German Geek wrote:
Hi gang,
Was just thinking of a cheap solution for sites that don't require absolute
security. A SSL cert cost about $150 a year. Sites like facebook could use
this...
Sites (like mine) that don't want to pay a certificate authority can use
a self-signed cert. Even Red Hat
Hi gang,
Was just thinking of a cheap solution for sites that don't require absolute
security. A SSL cert cost about $150 a year. Sites like facebook could use
this... Of course it's not for banks etc.
You could degrade gracefully when javascript is turned off to just sending
the form and checkin
Dotan Cohen wrote:
Have you seen the fit Firefox 3 makes for self-signed certs? So far as
the end user is concerned, the site is inaccesible.
Yes I have.
That's why on my site I have an instruction page - and a demonstration
of how Opera does it, which is just as secure and less of a PITA,
> I think just use a flippin' ssl server and be done with it.
>
++$i
> When I go to a website that requires me to let them execute JavaScript I
> rarely go back.
>
Many people do this, I hope that the OP realizes this.
> You can use SSL for the login and only the login - I know that it means
>
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> German Geek wrote:
>
> > What do you think?
>
> I think just use a flippin' ssl server and be done with it.
>
That was my thought too.
> You can use SSL for the login and only the login - I know that it
> means either using a self signed cert or paying big bucks,
German Geek wrote:
> What do you think?
I think just use a flippin' ssl server and be done with it.
When I go to a website that requires me to let them execute JavaScript I
rarely go back.
You can use SSL for the login and only the login - I know that it means
either using a self signed cer
12 matches
Mail list logo
