Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#51
To the point of EV certs, if you haven't checked in a while the browser vendors have _really_ started to de-emphasize non EV (standard certs).

Here's a visual comparison I put together:

https://www.expeditedssl.com/pages/visual-security-browser-s...

How you feel about this probably centers around whether you view SSL more as a cryptographic means of securing a connection (stopping traffic snooping) or if you view the SSL+Browser iconography as a means of site identification (stopping phishing attacks).

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#53

1. SSLS.com is rather nice. 2. Yes.

I can't edit now, but I thought by non-green, OP meant a self-signed certificate. Didn't realize OP was referring to EV certificates. I don't have a problem with buying from domains without EV certificates as long as the certificate is valid.

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#54

Don't EV certs create a net increase in security risk (if any web users understood what they were supposed to mean)? I'm not expert in these issues, but I've always doubted their security value: EV certs are supposed to communicate certainty[1] to typical web users about identity, confidentiality, and integrity. But, if I understand correctly, obtaining EV certs in someone else's name (or something close enough to fo…

You could consider EV certs as an economic attack by the Certificate Authorities and Browser vendors against phishing operations.

As a baseline, it is fairly difficult now to receive a certificate for any well known company, charity or government entity. For example, even a standard non EV request for something like 'C1tybank.com' would be flagged for manual review and rejected.

EV cert requests just up the amount, types and means of communication that must be done which (hopefully) raises costs more for phishers attempting to setup hundreds of scam sites than legit purchasers.

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#55
post #50

Th problem with EV (green bar) certs is the Browser usually ends up checking the certificate status via CRL or OCSP (URI is specified in the cert), which can add an additional .5 to 10+ seconds before the page is displayed. More so when the CA servers are down or the connection times out. So if you do go for an EV cert, go for the one that has the best listed uptime on it's CRL or OCSP servers. Having said that, I wo…

Such bad advice given the inquiry. Obviously. Lot of OP's customers are going to want the "best" certs (whatever that means). Or they're going to want "they're name in green". It's important to answer in the context of the question.

"So if you do go for an EV cert, go for the one that has the best listed uptime on it's CRL or OCSP servers."

http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/OCSP

How is the above bad advice, and not answering the context of the question? What other possible qualification is there for "best" EV certs? They are all "green bar". There is little else to them except price differences.

His customers are going to want a responsive page load time, none of them are going to pull the certificate to make sure he went with a DigiCert EV instead of a GeoTrust EV.

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#56

https://www.startssl.com 2 Years wildcard for $59.90

StartSSL has some detractors but I've used them for certain projects for quite a while, including for S/MIME email certificates (with full knowledge of the security implications compared to PGP, of course).

I'll give them some credit though for successfully using client certificates for login purposes. Sure it has some obvious drawbacks (if they only issue you one login keypair, losing it locks you out of your account) and some real benefits. It's interesting to say the least, and impressive to see working too.

I'd like to see that sort of login method offered at least as an option on more websites, even consumer stuff like Gmail and Facebook, but especially other SSL providers, seems like a natural fit.

As a login method it works automatically without any user interruption, every browser seems to support it, even my iPhone, and the enrollment process for securely generating a new key on the users machine and installing their certificate in the browser for them can clearly be 100% automated by the website itself (that's what StartSSL does), so that removes almost all the pain points for even non-technical users.

Oh and it makes automatic website login via smartcards possible too, should you choose to develop an obsession with them like I have :)

/tangent

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#57
SSL certs are an untrusty ransom based on the tyranny of bad UI.

FF, and chrome and IE are totally ok with login/pass passing in clear over http, which is wrong. But when you don't have a certificate signed with by one of the root certificate in your wallet it screams to death. (Which is totally in hierarchy of risk WTF).

Your wallet contains organization that should have been shut down according to the rules of SSL: we normally cannot trust any authority that even once or for good reasons emitted a joker certificate to make a MITM (or helped people doing so). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138565

In your web browser default certificates list you find microsoft. in 2007, they put in IE for the Ben Ali gvt a special certificate to be able to do a MITM on the tunisian opponents. (ofc those using ff would see a warning).

MS did not emit the certificate, but for them who can issue SSL certificates that's clear not right to provide a SSL joker root certificate in its web browser used for MITM (without your nice little icon you care about to get red).

MS is still in my list of trustful SSL certificates. How can you trust them. If they could betray once for a few money (tunisia had less money as a state than MS, google, whatever country) they have incentive to redo it again.

Knowing MS has gone through the death penalty, other SSL issuers can now have an incentive to do the same.

SSL central certificate are NOT to be trusted anymore. We have proofed once a company in our "trustfull" wallets betrayed without consequence. So betraying is OK.

My recommandations: - Ever dane (but that is a combinat) or the new technology google is secretly working on (maybe mozilla too), - set a cookie on http landing page ssl_cert_on=bool - if not present redirect to http://www/my_cert - give a link to your self signed certificate on your domain so that your user add it its wallet securely (must be a js or a MIME extension to set so that IE/FF/google open at the "add this certificate to your wallet page" - correct the world and FF/Chrome/IE mess by providing a way for the user to read the mess of the X509 certificate (for which domain this cert is valid, the fingerprint) - correct the world another time by explaining to your customers it is normal they should not trust this special web page or this certificate and give them links for them to check your allegation, (knowledge and tools) - provide another secured way to access your cert fingerprint (DNS SEC TXT record for instance, snail mails, flying carrier, PGP mails...) - and make a rant on how much security UI/UX is so much sucking and poorly thought that it is the major security hole nowadays and how all security guru giving us advice on how to code to "secure" code should be regarded as cons that should be imprisoned.

Then, now that you corrected the whole "what gone wrong with central authoriy"'s mess, you can very easily make your free self signed cert secure certificates and sleep on your 2 ears because your customers are now understanding security the right way.

If you understood nothing of the text above, just buy a normal certificate to whoever you want. You will be "safe" according to the green icon, and this is all that matters in the real world.

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#58

To the point of EV certs, if you haven't checked in a while the browser vendors have _really_ started to de-emphasize non EV (standard certs). Here's a visual comparison I put together: https://www.expeditedssl.com/pages/visual-security-browser-s... How you feel about this probably centers around whether you view SSL more as a cryptographic means of securing a connection (stopping traffic snooping) or if you view the…

Thanks for sharing this. It's really interesting to see exactly how each browser handles both standard and EV certificates.

Re: Ask HN: What's the best company to buy an SSL certificate from?

#60

Th problem with EV (green bar) certs is the Browser usually ends up checking the certificate status via CRL or OCSP (URI is specified in the cert), which can add an additional .5 to 10+ seconds before the page is displayed. More so when the CA servers are down or the connection times out. So if you do go for an EV cert, go for the one that has the best listed uptime on it's CRL or OCSP servers. Having said that, I wo…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN