Hacker News Reader

Comment by IgorPartola | Hacker News Reader

I am currently working on a project which must include content from third party CDN's. Unfortunately, lots of them do not support HTTPS at all. So while my site safely serves everything over HTTPS from origins I control, random images I'm including from elsewhere make it look like something is very wrong. Shouldn't at least CDN's at this point switch to HTTPS-only? There is no downside in including HTTPS resources in pages served over HTTP.

View on HN

Yep, and my site includes photos from S3, and S3 can't be https (because my bucket name has periods in it, like Amazon suggested). I guess I'll have to proxy the images myself.

You can build an https Cloudfront distribution from your S3 bucket -- faster delivery as well.

https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/custom-ssl-domains/

You can still access it from https://s3.amazonaws.com/bucketname, no?

You're right. Last time I tried it Amazon told me that this format wouldn't work with my bucket (because it was created after a certain date), but now it does (with a different hostname). Thanks!

That's really only needed if you want a custom domain name... imho, I don't think it's really so bad if your resources (not your main content) comes from s3.amazonaws.com ... Most people don't look into the developer/resources section of their browsers, and most of those that would/could would figure out pretty quickly it was s3/aws if they wanted to.

It's kind of sad that people, and amazon itself felt the need to push towards that... Of course Amazon is big enough at this point, they could/should have their own intermediary setup (like cloudflare) for use with s3.... Of course they probably just want to make the money from cloudfront.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com