Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They should probably also force connections trough their SPDY supported HTTPS, rather than making it an option.


A huge portion of their user-base doesn't visit with SPDY-capable browsers.


Actually 78.75% of our users are on Chrome/Firefox!

SSL is forced on our domain you post to (sys.4chan.org) with redirects and HSTS, and we set cookies with proper Secure and HTTP-Only flags. Maybe some day we'll force SSL site-wide, but I don't think that's the right decision for now.

I definitely encourage people use the EFF's wonderful HTTPS Everywhere extension though: https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere


78.75%? That's great news!

I imagined a lot of people would be using mobile and I know that Safari iOS doesn't support SPDY. Does this mean that > 80% of users are browsing on desktops, or is it possible there's a mobile app that's reporting a false user agent?

Or maybe all the iOS users fell victim to waterproof tests...


We get surprisingly little mobile web traffic -- only 16% in November.


Looks like you just assumed that iOS drives all the traffic on every website?

Having some idea of 4chan user base, I won't be surprized if android is more popular then iPhone.


I'd love to hear what's stopping you from forcing SSL site-wide. Is it cost? If so, what are the specifics if you don't mind sharing?

Also, I don't know if you're using different VIPs for load balancing or lack of SNI support reasons or what not, but if your certificate provides proof of authentication for all your hostnames (probably need to use SubjectAltNames and maybe wildcards too) and the VIPs match, then Chrome & Firefox will send requests for those different hostnames over the same SPDY connection.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: