Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is StartSSL worth the $0 price tag?

news.ycombinator.com

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is StartSSL worth the $0 price tag?

#11
post #3
post #2

I have used them in the past with no issues for personal sites. What are your concerns? In many aspects, a cert either "works" or it doesn't (in most cases, a SSL trusts the cert without warning). Generate a private and CSR that meet your security requirements (e.g. key length, cipher set, etc), submit it to StartSSL, and verify the resulting cert. If it meets your specs and is trusted by the SSL engines you use then…

My concern revolves around credibility. They took a beating after Heartbleed regarding the cost of revocation for certificates/credentials affected. While that is mostly a business decision on their end– it raises concerns about what their business is about. Nothing is "free", it just might not cost currency. "If you don't pay for the service, you are the service." Since I don't have experience with them I am looking…

Heartbleed had nothing to do with certs themselves, but instead, with how OpenSSL implemented an aspect of connection negotiation. Hence, the issue was isolated to OpenSSL not other SSL implementations or the SSL/TLS standards themselves.

In terms of "credibility", the issue comes down to how many browsers include their root cert by default. As far as I know, IE, Firefox, and Chrome include it meaning that it will be trusted by default.

The way they make money is selling other types of services such as wildcard and "green bar" certs. I think the folks running it want to see a wider use of SSL, and see providing free host-based certs as a good way to accomplish that goal. Bear mind, there zero cost to signing a cert ...

Re: Ask HN: Is StartSSL worth the $0 price tag?

#13
post #6

No, they're not a company that I personally would suggest. I highly recommend Comodo bought from NameCheap: https://www.namecheap.com/security/ssl-certificates/comodo.a... Another heartbleed type incident could happen in the near future (lots of eyes on that codebase now) and their strict policy will leave you choosing between coughing up $35 per certificate or leaving your site vulnerable. There has even been a larg…

I also like Comodo+NameCheap. I once tried to buy Comodo elsewhere and the cert activation process was much less friendly (they didn't recognize my authorized whois email of record). Another nice perk I just realized, NameCheap gives you the whole term of the cert from the time you activate the cert, not from the time you purchase (maybe that's common though).

That said, I think the bad press StartSSL is getting is mostly undeserved. You can either choose a free cert with the outside chance you'll want to pay to revoke it, or just automatically pay up front every term. Probabilistically, they still have the cheapest option. And are site admins who can't/won't pay $35 really that likely to have a very secure server anyhow? That means they would have never bought SSL anyhow without StartSSL.

Re: Ask HN: Is StartSSL worth the $0 price tag?

#14
post #9

Whatever happened with "StartSSL, please revoke me"?

"Sure, pay us $35." I believe the exact quote during the Heartbleed incident was, "Dead serious." https://twitter.com/startssl/status/453631038883758080

I meant the fate of the person who posted his private key trying to work around that more-than-issue. (as, IIRC, under the terms of being in the Mozilla repository StartSSL was obligated to revoke certificates that were known to be compromised)
Post reply on HN