Online shop... SSL certificate required?
Discussion
If I hit your checkout page and it was unencrypted I would leave and never go back to your website again. SSL certs are mandatory.
I use Thawte because I've got a corporate account with them, not the cheapest but they are easy to deal with for managing multiple certs.
Is £100 really wortth losing customers over?
I use Thawte because I've got a corporate account with them, not the cheapest but they are easy to deal with for managing multiple certs.
Is £100 really wortth losing customers over?
If you are using PayPal for the shop (essentially, for processing the transactions) then you don't need one as the transaction will physically done on PayPal's site under their certificate.
GoDaddy has probably the most complex username / password / admin console arrangement I've ever seen.
GoDaddy has probably the most complex username / password / admin console arrangement I've ever seen.
It will depend how you are doing the Pay Pal side really, if using their own cart(so just adding the button code to your site) you do not need an SSL. If you have your own cart & then send this info to Pay Pal again, your really do not need a cert BUT many people expect the cart to be HTTPS as they (wrongly) assume when they press checkout the next page will be unsecure too.
If you're after an SSL cert without the "click here to verify" type buttons i use these guys:
https://www.trustico.co.uk/products/rapidssl/cheap...
https://www.trustico.co.uk/products/rapidssl/cheap...
LivinLaVidaLotus said:
AFAIK the RapidSSL are just a logo, not a proper verifiable trust seal. If you're going to go for a domain only validated SSL then don't go paying £14 for it. Get one from the guys at ServerTastic.com and pay <£10 for it, there's no difference.
They are Equifax Secure Global eBusiness CA-1 certs.BliarOut said:
Which one would you choose for securing an Outlook Anywhere Exchange installation?
RapidSSL as posted above will work fine for securing Exchange services as the Equifax root CA is about as universally trusted as anything else. I use one for publishing my own Exchange services and I've used them for a few customers and hever had any problems.Also I wouldn't even contemplate buying a 1 year cert for £14 when you can get a 5 year for about £60 then just forget about it for a good while.
theboss said:
BliarOut said:
Which one would you choose for securing an Outlook Anywhere Exchange installation?
RapidSSL as posted above will work fine for securing Exchange services as the Equifax root CA is about as universally trusted as anything else. I use one for publishing my own Exchange services and I've used them for a few customers and hever had any problems.Also I wouldn't even contemplate buying a 1 year cert for £14 when you can get a 5 year for about £60 then just forget about it for a good while.
BliarOut said:
Ooh, Startcom looks interesting for securing SBS, $49 for wildcard certificates!
Is their CA's root widely trusted though?RE SBS2008. I didn't think Autodiscover works properly with wildcard certificates, there is a MS article describing extra configuration steps to make them work with Outlook but I'm under the impression that iPhones still won't work.
In any case a UC/SAN certificate will almost certainly cost more (possibly a lot more) than 2 normal 'cheap' certificates and therefore I've always gone for that option, yes its a bit less 'neat' than using a SAN cert but it does have the benefit of added flexibility in terms of presenting different authentication methods for different services. For example you may well want to present FBA for OWA, basic for autodiscover and NTLM for RPC (thus avoiding a credential prompt for domain joined laptops).
IMHO its a great shame Microsoft dropped ISA after SBS2003 Premium as I can't stand the thought of publishing Exchange services on SBS to the internet. If you can sneak ISA/TMG into the picture this will offer a much greater level of security and makes the two cert option much easier to implement because you don't have to change the IIS or Exchange configs on the SBS. Even my smallest clients are now using hypervisors so it should be easy enough even for those that perish the thought of having to buy 'another server'.
Seems to be since October last year when MS implemented it in IE. Fortunately we're talking about a business network so you can define a minimum standard and be confident it'll work.
I've just deployed a SAN/UCC cert from Startcom for £33 for two years! The only minor snag is it fails on http://www.testexchangeconnectivity.com/ even though Autodiscover works perfectly.
I've just deployed a SAN/UCC cert from Startcom for £33 for two years! The only minor snag is it fails on http://www.testexchangeconnectivity.com/ even though Autodiscover works perfectly.
I gave up with GoDaddy certs because their approval process makes me want to stab myself in the eyes, and that's if you've got passed the login without jamming your head in a filing cabinet and repeatedly banging shut the drawer.
In short; not a good experience.
Anyway, to the OP, if you're not actually taking payment on your site then an SSL is a bit pointless, unless you're selling weapons or something
In short; not a good experience.
Anyway, to the OP, if you're not actually taking payment on your site then an SSL is a bit pointless, unless you're selling weapons or something
Not entirely sure what to make of Startcom.
Seems a good idea i.e. pay to be validated not for each cert, and the root CA's are there in Windows as of last September/October time as well as being in OS X/Safari/Chrome/Mozilla.
In our case we have a dozen or so rapidssl certs securing various sites. Admittedly they're only $10 each but our internal purchase process makes it a chore to renew them individually more than the technical process does. Plus we have various internal resources that it'd be great to secure with non-self-signed SSL but when you have to pay for each cert you just don't do it, generally speaking.
For us the kicker is that they don't appear to have their root CA on Nokia/Symbian (of which we have a few) which means that we'd have to use a separate cert for our Exchange server, but I don't see that as a huge deal.
All in all it looks like very good value, be interested to know how many folks running Windows on a managed corporate machine will have that root CA installed though.
Seems a good idea i.e. pay to be validated not for each cert, and the root CA's are there in Windows as of last September/October time as well as being in OS X/Safari/Chrome/Mozilla.
In our case we have a dozen or so rapidssl certs securing various sites. Admittedly they're only $10 each but our internal purchase process makes it a chore to renew them individually more than the technical process does. Plus we have various internal resources that it'd be great to secure with non-self-signed SSL but when you have to pay for each cert you just don't do it, generally speaking.
For us the kicker is that they don't appear to have their root CA on Nokia/Symbian (of which we have a few) which means that we'd have to use a separate cert for our Exchange server, but I don't see that as a huge deal.
All in all it looks like very good value, be interested to know how many folks running Windows on a managed corporate machine will have that root CA installed though.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff