Home / server / Questions / 406559
In Process
Agvorth
Asked: 2012-07-11 13:53:39 +0800 CST

What would be the minimum-cost reasonable SSL option? [duplicate]

  • 772

Possible Duplicate:
Difference between SSL products

I want to ensure that the traffic between the browser and my app is encrypted, and that visitors don't have to click through a scary "unverified certificate" dialog.

I'm looking over the SSL certificate options here at namecheap.com, and I'm having a hard time figuring out which one will do that for me.

In particular, can anyone tell me what the difference is between "Positive SSL" and "Essential SSL"?

Also, if I choose one of the options that doesn't support wildcards, will it cover my domain both with and without the "www" part?

Sorry for the totally newbie question. I haven't implemented SSL on a site before. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

ssl https ssl-certificate

3 Answers

  1. You can even have a free SSL certificate for your site that is accepted by every major browser. You can get it at StartSSL.

    One certificate is mostly for the root domain (foo.com) and one subdomain (www.foo.com) at least at StartSSL I know that for sure but I guess that would be the same for namecheap.com.

    • 4

  2. In particular, can anyone tell me what the difference is between "Positive SSL" and "Essential SSL"?

    For your purpose, the fact you one it for one app (and assuming on one server), they are exactly the same.

    I can speak from experience that if you purchase PositiveSSL - you will be covered for both www.example.com and example.com, even though it's the cheapest.

    • 2

  3. I'd be a bit leery of the comodo certificates -- they were hacked pretty recently and are not exactly trusted. Geotrust is a better option.

    By "not exactly trusted" I mean they are hard to trust -- the fundamental underpinning of the system that SSL uses is the people with trusted root certificates will not have issues like Comodo had last year. Now, I will say Comodo handled it pretty well all things considered. But it should not have happened in the first place. Why go with someone who was compromised when there are other options out there.

    Rather than worry about handling multiple hosts on one cert, you might be better off using a different virtual site listening to the non-ssl traffic on your site to redirect everything to the single HTTPS host you are using. This is a win in multiple ways -- gets everybody on the right url and on SSL. Lazy users don't get errors when they forget the https prefix.

    • -2