Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's no cert because there's no need for one in the first place. Mentioning that is pretty silly - it's obvious that there's nothing wrong with a static site with now cert, and no one is arguing against that.


> no need for one in the first place ... it's obvious that there's nothing wrong with a static site with no cert

Oh yes, there is.

https://doesmysiteneedhttps.com

> YES

> Your site needs HTTPS.


> there's nothing wrong with a static site with no cert

Not really. Google says "switch to HTTPS or lose ranking":

https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/08/https-as-ranking-s...


Good to note. But I think you're distracting from the article's talking point.

I disagree with "switch to HTTPS or lose ranking", but that's an HTTP vs. HTTPS issue with Google's search ranking, not about Chromium or Mozilla. This article is about Chromium & Mozilla making stricter rules for HTTPS certificates. That's not a bad thing, to hold HTTPS sites to a better standard.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: