Hacker News Reader

SSL is much more expensive to deliver at scale, it could potentially kill popular non-commercial websites as the costs of hosting would be much more expensive without the caching, etc. that non-SSL permits.

View on HN

Got any specific details of how this makes hosting more expensive and difficult to scale? If the browser and all web servers have the same certificate, I don't see much of a challenge in going SSL-only.

Also, I did some research after posting. Google Chrome now has an HTTPS-only mode: http://www.cgisecurity.com/2009/01/httpsonly-mode-added-to-c...

And the EFF has released extensions for Firefox and Chrome that apply HTTPS to all websites: https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

SSL uses a lot more cpu on the server for static pages/images.

SSL prohibits caching of resources by ISP, universities etc which reduces their internet bill.

FWIW addressing point 1: The difference in pricing when using Cloudfront for serving 10.000.000 files (in the US) over HTTPS opposed to unencrypted is 2.5$

Reply on news.ycombinator.com