Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I built a simple website for my mother's business. There is no login, database, or any sort of form or payment happening on the site. I do not have an SSL Certificate and was wondering if a self-signed one offered by cPanel hosting would suffice? I would hate to shell out money for encryption I don't need yet. The main reason I need it is so that the browsers stop blocking my https connection. Any information I can get on this would be a big help.
Rather than selecting a self-signed SSL Certificate, you better go with the Free/Trial SSL Certificate offered by some of world's leading SSL Certificate authorities like Comodo, Symantec and RapidSSL.
Why no to Self-Signed SSL Certificate?
Not accepted by most browsers
Browser will display untrusted connection error message
Why Free/Trial SSL Certificate?
Compatible with multiple servers and operating system platforms.
Accepted by 99.9% web and mobile browsers (No Error after installation)
It will give trust and confidence to users as the SSL is from verified SSL authority
Increases website reputation over internet.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Ours is a educational website collegesearch.in which is HTTPS secured. We are loosing our desktop traffic because we get error like untrusted certificate on public domain networks and also some of the antiviruses block our website as well. There is no issue with our certificate and they are issued by CSA and are not self-signed.
We understand some of the pages may include mixed content like stuffed http links, which we identify and remove but this itself does not seem to be the reason of traffic drop.
We have 75% mobile users and only ~20% of desktop, while our competitors have 40% of desktop users and they are http websites. This makes us think that using HTTPS has become ironically a problem.
My question is What makes antiviruses block HTTPS website?
Why we get untrusted certicate error?
Anything that can help here...
The site collegesearch.in:
is using a self-signed certificate and thus is not trusted by default by any browsers
on top of this the certificate is expired
on top of this the name in the certificate does not match the URL
on top of that you are offering insecure ciphers
For more details see the SSLLabs report.
Interestingly, www.collegesearch.in is setup in a different way although it still offers some weak ciphers.
It looks like that you are trying to deal with the badly setup collegesearch.in by redirecting users to www.collegesearch.in. But, for the redirect to work the user is first confronted with the bad certificate from collegesearch.in which he must accept before the browsers continues with the HTTP request which then results in the redirect to www.collegesearch.in. To fix this you need to have a proper certificate setup not only for www.collegesearch.in but also collegesearch.in.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a website running on AWS that needs SSL. The website has the functionality that it must by white labelable according to the subdomain accessed. For example, when accessing www.a.the-site.com the website will look different from when it is accessed from www.b.the-site.com, but it is the same virtual host handling both urls. I use an ELB which directs to the EC2 instance (only one instance at this stage) This worked fine when running over normal http.
I followed the step by step tutorial on AWS (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/ssl-server-cert.html and http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb-create-https-ssl-load-balancer.html#configure-https-listener) to generate the keys (steps laid out below for ease of reference) and got the certificate from GoDaddy. (Upon pasting the CSR on the GoDaddy website's certificate request process, the correct CN was displayed). The certificate bought was a wildcard certificate, to support different subdomains. I applied the Certificate on the ELB using the AWS website interface, which did not prompt any errors, but now when I access the site over https, I get the SSL error in the browser:
"The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website's address."
Investigating the Certificate on https://www.sslshopper.com shows the following:
It states that none of the common names match, yet the common name in the chain is correct (*.the-site.com)
I can also post the steps followed to create the private key and CSR, but I have not received any indication that these are incorrect. It seems like the CN *.the-site.com is not resolving www.a.the-site.com. Can anyone shed some light on this?
#Michael - sqlbot was correct, the wildcard certificate only checks for a single domain. I changed my domain settings to not redirect to www.a.example.com, but rather a.example.com (dropping the www subdomain) and all is working as expected.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Our company recently implemented Zscaler proxy filtering, which I just learned uses a root certificate pushed out to all of our machines to forge SSL certificates for mitm filtering of our traffic. Personally I'm not happy about this, but we do a lot of sensitive work, so I'm not going to complain.
But now I'm noticing they don't seem to be doing it consistently. For instance, if I go to Facebook on the work network, the certificate is signed by ZScaler Intermediate Root CA, which clearly means it's been compromised. But if I go to, say, my bank, it says it's signed by Verisign. Am I right in thinking that means the bank connection has not been intercepted and is still end to end encrypted?
Zscaler allows the administrator to configure which sites/domains/categories will or will not be decrypted for inspection. It sounds like your admins have disabled SSL decryption sites in the finance category, and thus traffic to your bank is not being decrypted, whilst traffic to Facebook is.
As far as determining which traffic is and is not being decrypted you are exactly right - check the SSL certificate and if it's signed by the Zscaler certificate then the traffic is being Man-In-The-Middle'ed. If it's signed by any other certificate (including Verisign/etc) then it's NOT being MITM'ed.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
What I want to do is making my website available via https without getting these browser warning that the site is not trusted.
I created an SSL certificate for my domain and configured Apache webserver to use it in default-ssl. Calling my site with https:// works, but in every browser on every device a get the message that no issuer chain was provided. In firefox like:
The certificate is not trusted because no issuer chain was provided.
(Error code: sec_error_unknown_issuer)
What did I understand wrong with SSL?
The certificate you get is not directly signed by the Root-CA, but by an intermediate CA, which by itself got signed by the Root-CA. You have to add this intermediate CA to the certificates your server sends to the client, because the client only trusts the Root-CA and does not now the intermediate CA.
The process is described in various places, like https://eldon.me/?p=34
You say Startcom SSL - do you mean the free one? If so - that's a normal and import behavior of these browsers (well your free certificate isn't validated - no prove that this certificate really belongs to you). I actually hope there is no way around that.
Don't get me wrong - CA's have their advantages as well as disadvantages. What you could do for your users is take part in the web of trust, yet it won't help on that topic.
What you personally can do, is view the certificate (when the warning is displayed - don't directly click for a temporary exception) and then, there is an option to permanently save an exception for that certificate.
But you have to do that on every browser (once) and just works for you, every other user visiting the site has to do the same.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 months ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking through a variety of SSL providers, but they all seem to provide "email certificates" which can double as client-certs that can be installed into a browser.
Does any company actually sell client-certificates and know what they're talking about?
X509v3 certificates can be restricted to specific uses. Some S/MIME certificates are restricted so that they can't be used for websites, but most are not.
Thawte no longer issues client certificates. My certificate from 2003 had a Cert Type" of "SSL CLient, S/MIME" indicating that they could be used for both email and for client certificates. My certificate from April 27, 2009 had only a single constraint, that it could not be used as a Certificate Authority.
Apple's iChat encryption certificate can only be used for SSL Client. You get this automatically if you are a me.com customer and enable secure iChat.
You may find that it is easiest to issue your own certificates. Many people do this and it works quite well. You will need to have the user load your own key as a CA.
A client certificate is typically only meaningful in the context a service who trusts it.
For example when a windows computer joins a domain, that client workstation generates a key pair (internally), and the domain controller signs it, and that signed pair (now becomes a cert, though not an X509 cert) and is used internally by windows. The cert is only meaningful to the domain controller.
Normally large organizations who run their own CA issue client certs to people who wan to use SSL auth to access secure sites.
The reason that client certificates are probably rare on the internet at large, is the revocation problem. For Thawte to issue you (personally) a client cert would mean that they would have to be responsible for managing revocation for it. In order for it to be cost effective, there would be a large number of certs out there; and they would constantly be being revoked, since individuals constantly individual security lapses.