←back to thread

569 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
imoreno ◴[] No.42599386[source]
I agree with most of this. If every website followed these, the web would be heaven (again)...

But why this one?

>I don't force you to use SSL/TLS to connect here. Use it if you want, but if you can't, hey, that's fine, too.

What is wrong with redirecting 80 to 443 in today's world?

Security wise, I know that something innocuous like a personal blog is not very sensitive, so encrypting that traffic is not that important. But as a matter of security policy, why not just encrypt everything? Once upon a time you might have cared about the extra CPU load from TLS, but nowadays it seems trivial. Encrypting everything arguably helps protect the secure stuff too, as it widens the attacker's search space.

These days, browser are moving towards treating HTTP as a bug and throw up annoying propaganda warnings about it. Just redirecting seems like the less annoying option.

replies(10): >>42599423 #>>42599448 #>>42599461 #>>42599916 #>>42600279 #>>42601148 #>>42605479 #>>42605998 #>>42609172 #>>42627972 #
kdmtctl ◴[] No.42599423[source]
It's fine on a simple site. But lack of SSL/TLS also effectively disables http2 which is a performance hit, not just a security concern.
replies(2): >>42599882 #>>42606160 #
GuB-42 ◴[] No.42606160[source]
HTTP/2 doesn't matter in this case, there are only 4 files to transfer. The webpage itself (html), then the style sheet (css), then the feed icon and favicon. You can do with only the html, the css makes it look better, and the other two are not very important.

It means that HTTP/2 will likely degrade performance because of the TLS handshake, and you won't benefit from multiplexing because there is not much to load in parallel. The small improvement in header size won't make up for what TLS adds. And this is just about network latency and bandwidth. HTTP/2 takes a lot more CPU and RAM than plain HTTP/1.1. Same thing for HTTP/3.

Anyways, it matters even less here because this website isn't lacking SSL/TLS, it just doesn't force you to use it.

replies(1): >>42609327 #
homebrewer ◴[] No.42609327[source]
I have pings in excess of 300 ms to her site. TCP connections need a lot of time to "warm up" before speeds become acceptable. It's easy to say things like "http2 does not matter" when you're single digit milliseconds away from all major datacenters.
replies(1): >>42609946 #
1. GuB-42 ◴[] No.42609946[source]
HTTP/2 matters on bloated websites with tons of external resources, it is not the case here. HTTP/2 will not get you the first HTML page faster and this is the only thing needed here to start showing you something.

In terms of round trips, HTTP/1.1 without TLS will do one less than HTTP/2 with TLS, and as much as HTTP/3 with TLS.