tags:

views:

105

answers:

7

I'm running a dating site and not using SSL at the moment.

I've noticed major sites like facebook and twitter do not use https for login but just use plain old http, is there really any advantage to https-ing my site or it is only for cc transactions or so ?

thanks in advance.

+2  A: 

SSL is used only when transmitting sensitive data between browser and server. It's fine for major sites like facebook and twitter to use http (as long as the data is not sensitive). Most website use SSL for their login page. SSL also used by payment gateway to safely transfer payment information through the wire.

And by the way, http is not "plain old" and https is not new trend either :)

Lee Sy En
How is it fine for major sites to use http for sensitive login information? First of, they do not. They use https. They do send non sensitive data over http once you are logged in, but believe me, you are not sending you password in plain text when you log in to either facebook or twitter. It would allow anyone between you and them to see your password. Don't you think we would have heard of that if it was the case? Furthermore, a quick look at their source code reveals that login information is sent encrypted.
klausbyskov
I don't think there's anything wrong about what was said here. Justify downvote? For instance, it IS fine for Facebook and Twitter to use HTTP for much of the communication (at the very least any data that is part of a user's public profile), but not login as he says.
Mark Peters
@klausbyskov: If you look, he never said it's OK to use http for sensitive login information.
Mark Peters
I am sorry for my mistake. I have to rephrase my sentence. It is fine for major sites to use http, <as long as the data is not sensitive>. My next sentence saying that "Most website use SSL for their login page". Same things apply to Facebook and Twitter.
Lee Sy En
@Mark Peters, fair enough, you're right.
klausbyskov
@Mark Peters and @klausbyskov: Thanks :)
Lee Sy En
+1  A: 

If your users are providing any sensitive data, ssl prevents it from being intercepted by a third party. If you don't use SSL, you should assume that some third party can see everything that every one of your users does on your website. If you are comfortable with them seeing this information, then keep it plain http, but if you don't like that thought, go https.

Another benefit of ssl is that it allows the use of Strict Transport Security, which not only forces https on all site activity, but also prevents a man in the middle from spoofing your site to a user and making them think they are accessing your site. Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_Transport_Security

Wade Tandy
+4  A: 

SSL encrypts the traffic between the browser and the server. So virtaully anything you want to be secure needs to be ssl'ed. Google search is even doing it so poeople can't have their search terms intercepted.

Its just the case of what YOU want secure, and if not having certain parts of your site secure will keep wanted customers away. I would think a dating site has a lot of personal demographics information that some people might want secure... just my 2 cents.

Climber104
+1  A: 

I work at a major ISP and am infatuated with one of your online members. By sniffing your packets, I can find out when and where she's meeting another member, rewrite the packet to change the location so the other guy doesn't show up, and then make my move.

You decide whether that's acceptable to your users.

Mark Peters
Don't have to be an ISP employee. More accurately, you're probably her next door neighbor and have broken into her wireless router and are redirecting her website requests through your computer.
Wade Tandy
Or you're her next door neighbor and just look out of your **frikken window**. This example is kind of a stretch, I think for a dating site encrypting the login process is pretty sufficient. And further risks are more likely to be of a social hacking rather than technical hacking nature.
Jordan Reiter
@Jordan and @Wade: Both of those are scenarios that are valid but explore different aspects. @Jordan: There's a reason I said "you decide..." but I think it's a question of liability, not likelihood. There are a lot of creeps out there. You've got to give them more "respect" than that.
Mark Peters
A: 

Https is useful to protect the credential (user/password) , but it increases the network load and requires more CPU resource (encryption). Thus, it is common to use only for authentication. Https ,with server certificate protects again phising.

Banks uses end to end application

germanlinux
It hardly increases the CPU use or network load at all. And you pay most of the CPU load price anyway when you enable SSL for authentication.
GregS
+3  A: 

Actually, facebook does use https for its login:

<form method="POST" action="https://login.facebook.com/login.php?login_attempt=1" id="login_form">

as does twitter:

<form method="post" id="signin" action="https://twitter.com/sessions"&gt;

You'll notice they don't use https for the page that displays the signin form. That's because it isn't necessary.

However, it's a good idea to use ssl the login itself if you can, if only because so many users employ the same password for all sites.

One solution, which I'd like to see more sites employ, is using OpenID/OAuth for login instead of requiring a username/password.

Jordan Reiter
thanks for pointing that out, I was a bit surprised to find that the general consensus on the net was that fb and twitter do not use ssl, based solely on on the fact that the login form is not ssl...
Sherif Omar
Actually they **should** be using SSL on the page that displays the sign in form. Otherwise a man in the middle could rewrite the page to send connect requests to *his* site. Then he'd redirect you back to facebook.com/twitter.com, and then he'd have your password and you'd never know.
Graeme Perrow
there must be some reason why they don't ?
Sherif Omar
A couple of reasons they don't -- their login page is available from every part of their website, not just a single login page. They'd have to make every page available only through https. Also, it's a further load on their already overtaxed servers.
Jordan Reiter
@Graeme Perrow is correct and furthermore as long as session resumption is configured at the server then almost all of the extra CPU load (the public key crypt) for SSL is already being expended during the SSL-secured login process.
GregS