Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 21, 2011 at 21:45 comment added Shane Madden @voretaq7 Session hijacking is the risk that SSL would prevent - while's it's obviously not nearly the level of value that someone's facebook or email session cookie would be, I don't think the "there's no need" reasoning really works in that context - the "it isn't worth it" reason is plenty valid, though!
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:50 comment added Chopper3 Mod As an indication our hardware SSL/TLS boxes cost over £250k for around 65,000 SSL transactions per second - so quite expensive.
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:49 comment added voretaq7 gmail deals with data you don't want other people to see (your email) :-)
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:40 vote accept mdpc
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:39 comment added mdpc Interesting point is that gmail allows for both http:: and https:: access (in fact, I believe https:: is the default access mode). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to more thoroughly discuss the reasoning involved.
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:34 comment added voretaq7 +1 - To implement SSL on a site that doesn't pass sensitive auth data (you sign in with OpenID, right?) makes little sense. The overhead of doing SSL on front-end web servers (or the astronomical cost of hardware SSL accelerators) would be pretty hard to justify.
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:25 comment added Mark Henderson Mod Additionally, adding SSL to a website as highly trafficed as the Stack Exchange network is not nearly as simple as just installing a certificate.
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:18 comment added Chopper3 Mod But your "sessions" (i.e. new questions, answers, comments, chats etc.) are public domain, you don't get privacy with SE, at all (apart from login stuff) - so it'd be unnecessary load on the platform.
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:11 comment added mdpc But why not allow it? Maybe I don't want my sessions to be eavesdropped on.
Jul 21, 2011 at 20:07 history answered Chopper3Mod CC BY-SA 3.0