I would like to build a static website which basically represents a portfolio/resume which doesn't use cookies or third-party analytics and only has a mailto:// for email.
It seems very difficult to find a web host which easily allows me to just have a few static web pages without needing to go through a lengthy understanding of how the CPRA vs CCPA vs GDPR works and what I need to include in a privacy policy or terms and conditions. To make things even more confusing, the web host would most likely have their own analytics or IP logging and so you also need to understand how that affects your website and what you need to explain to the website visitor.
Has anyone had similar issues with this, or have any recommendations on what the best course of action would be to host a very basic website?
If you're not collecting any personal data, GDPR simply doesn't apply, so it's not too difficult to avoid problems.
If you don't use shared hosting, but use a dedicated VM (typical costs start from about €3/month) and configure HTTPS, then your visitors will not be seen by your hosting provider in any meaningful sense beyond encrypted TCP traffic. On your VM you can either turn off logging altogether, or retain basic IP logging on the basis of legitimate interests, which is entirely defensible for security and anti-abuse purposes, though if you're only serving static pages you may as well not bother.
Even if you're serving only static pages, loading client-side content from third party sources can present a problem, so avoid using anything like JS library or image CDNs, Google fonts, analytics, tag manager, anything from facebook, twitter, instagram, etc, though linking to those places is fine. Set very strict CSP and secure referrer-policy headers and don't use any cookies.
Related
We're currently doing optimizations to our web project when our lead told us to push the use of CDNs for external libraries as opposed to including them into a compile+compress process and shipping them off a cache-enabled nginx setup.
His assumption is that if the user has visits example.com which uses a CDN'ed version of jQuery, the jQuery is cached that time. If the user happens to visit example2.com and happen to use the same CDN'ed jQuery, the jQuery will be loaded from cache instead of over the network.
So my question is: Do domains actually share their cache?
I argued that even if it is possible the browser does share cache, the problem is that we are running on the assumption that the previous sites use the same exact CDN'ed file from the same exact CDN. What are the chances of running into a user browsing through a site using the same CDN'ed file? He said to use the largest CDN to increase chances.
So the follow-up question would be: If the browser does share cache, is it worth the hassle to optimize based on his assumption?
I have looked up topics about CDNs and I have found nothing about this "shared domain cache" or CDNs being used this way.
Well your lead is right this is basic HTTP.
All you are doing is indicating to the client where it can find the file.
The client then handles sending a request to the CDN in compliance with their caching rules.
But you shouldn't over-use CDNs for libraries either, keep in mind that if you need a specific version of the library, especially older ones, you won't be likely to get much cache hits because of version fragmentation.
For widely used and heavy libraries like jQuery you want the latest version of it is recommended.
If you can take them all from the same CDN all the better (ie: Google's) especially as http2 is coming.
Additionally they save you bandwidth, which can amount to a lot when you have high loads of traffic, and can reduce the load time for users far from your server (Google's is great for this).
I have seen some general questions regarding speed of SSL, but most answers are generic and ask for specifics to give a better answer.
Well, here are my specifics, i really hope someone can help me with some advice what to do.
Question:
I would prefer to keep SSL on throughout the site, instead of only at default Magento SSL behavior such as logging in, account edits, orders and payments. So basically, also during product browsing, reading CMS pages, etc.
But at what performance cost will this be. I'm only worried about actual performance a user may notice.
I'm running a Magento multistore site on a dedicated server with 4GB memory and dualcore processor with gigabit internet connectivity, running Centos 5 and latest LAMP versions. I run a Comodo SSL multidomain Extended Validation (the 'green bar').
Ask me for any details that are relevant to make a better advice :-)
In short, the answer is you will most definitely see a performance hit. This is why Magento was built the way it was. Secure the pages the have private content, and leave the rest open.
Each HTTPS request made using HTTPS, the client and server must deal with verifying the certificate, passing keys, encrypting and decrypting the data. This adds quite an overhead to apache and the OS. You will also loose the efficiencies of local caching of static content, such as stylesheets, javascript pages, images, etc.
As a result, the client will see a increase in load times, Google will ding you for a slow website, conversion will most likely decrease, and possibly other unforeseen consequences.
Here's a conversation from Magentocommerce about constant HTTPS: magentocommerce
In the end, it's not a great idea. Magento does a very good job knowing which pages should be secure and which are fine without.
But, if you MUST, it is possible. Watch your conversion and analytics numbers closely. If you have Google Analytics installed, add page_speed _trackPageLoadTime to your site. Then, at least, you will know what the dammage is.
I have a site that works very well when everything is in HTTPS (authentication, web services etc). If I mix http and https it requires more coding (cross domain problems).
I don't seem to see many web sites that are entirely in HTTPS so I was wondering if it was a bad idea to go about it this way?
Edit: Site is to be hosted on Azure cloud where Bandwidth and CPU usage could be an issue...
EDIT 10 years later: The correct answer is now to use https only.
you lose a lot of features with https (mainly related to performance)
Proxies cannot cache pages
You cannot use a reverse proxy for performance improvement
You cannot host multiple domains on the same IP address
Obviously, the encryption consumes CPU
Maybe that's no problem for you though, it really depends on the requirements
HTTPS decreases server throughput so may be a bad idea if your hardware can't cope with it. You might find this post useful. This paper (academic) also discusses the overhead of HTTPS.
If you have HTTP requests coming from a HTTPS page you'll force the user to confirm the loading of unsecure data. Annoying on some websites I use.
This question and especially the answers are OBSOLETE. This question should be tagged: <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> so that it no longer appears in search results.
To make THIS answer relevant:
Google is now penalizing website search rankings when they fail to use TLS/https. You will ALSO be penalized in rankings for duplicate content, so be careful to serve a page EITHER as http OR https BUT NEVER BOTH (Or use accurate canonical tags!)
Google is also aggressively indicating insecure connections which has a negative impact on conversions by frightening-off would-be users.
This is in pursuit of a TLS-only web/internet, which is a GOOD thing. TLS is not just about keeping your passwords secure — it's about keeping your entire world-facing environment secure and authentic.
The "performance penalty" myth is really just based on antiquated obsolete technology. This is a comparison that shows TLS being faster than HTTP (however it should be noted that page is also a comparison of encrypted HTTP/2 HTTPS vs Plaintext HTTP/1.1).
It is fairly easy and free to implement using LetsEncrypt if you don't already have a certificate in place.
If you DO have a certificate, then batten down the hatches and use HTTPS everywhere.
TL;DR, here in 2019 it is ideal to use TLS site-wide, and advisable to use HTTP/2 as well.
</soapbox>
If you've no side effects then you are probably okay for now and might be happy not to create work where it is not needed.
However, there is little reason to encrypt all your traffic. Certainly login credentials or other sensitive data do. One the main things you would be losing out on is downstream caching. Your servers, the intermediate ISPs and users cannot cache the https. This may not be completely relevant as it reads that you are only providing services. However, it completely depends on your setup and whether there is opportunity for caching and if performance is an issue at all.
It is a good idea to use all-HTTPS - or at least provide knowledgeable users with the option for all-HTTPS.
If there are certain cases where HTTPS is completely useless and in those cases you find that performance is degraded, only then would you default to or permit non-HTTPS.
I hate running into pointlessly all-https sites that handle nothing that really requires encryption. Mainly because they all seem to be 10x slower than every other site I visit. Like most of the documentation pages on developer.mozilla.org will force you to view it with https, for no reason whatsoever, and it always takes long to load.
Through my job, I can get cheap wimax but there’d be a bandwidth limit of 200MB/month
I often work on personal programming projects on the train to work. For this, I generally don’t need web access and even when I do need access; it’s usually for pages I’ve already visited.
Is there a way to cache my web visits in a way that’s relatively transparent. I’m thinking a caching proxy.
I want to be able to tell it:
Cache everything from https://developer.mozilla.org (would be nice if they provided downloadable docs)
Don’t cache google
Cache javascript, css, and images from gmail and facebook (perhaps updating once a week)
Block youtube altogether (bandwidth hog)
Thoughts?
Does Squid Cache fit your bill?
http://www.squid-cache.org/
My last couple of projects have involved websites that sell a product/service and require a 'checkout' process in which users put in their credit card information and such. Obviously we got SSL certificates for the security of it plus giving peace of mind to the customers. I am, however, a little clueless as to the subtleties of it, and most importantly as to which parts of the website should 'use' the certificate.
For example, I've been to websites where the moment you hit the homepage you are put in https - mostly banking sites - and then there are websites where you are only put in https when you are finally checking out. Is it overkill to make the entire website run through https if it doesn't deal with something on the level of banking? Should I only make the checkout page https? What is the performance hit on going all out?
I personally go with "SSL from go to woe".
If your user never enters a credit card number, sure, no SSL.
But there's an inherent possible security leak from the cookie replay.
User visits site and gets assigned a cookie.
User browses site and adds data to cart ( using cookie )
User proceeds to payment page using cookie.
Right here there is a problem, especially if you have to handle payment negotiation yourself.
You have to transmit information from the non-secure domain to the secure domain, and back again, with no guarantees of protection.
If you do something dumb like share the same cookie with unsecure as you do with secure, you may find some browsers ( rightly ) will just drop the cookie completely ( Safari ) for the sake of security, because if somebody sniffs that cookie in the open, they can forge it and use it in the secure mode to, degrading your wonderful SSL security to 0, and if the Card details ever get even temporarily stored in the session, you have a dangerous leak waiting to happen.
If you can't be certain that your software is not prone to these weaknesses, I would suggest SSL from the start, so their initial cookie is transmitted in the secure.
If the site is for public usage, you should probably put the public parts on HTTP. This makes things easier and more efficient for spiders and casual users. HTTP requests are much faster to initiate than HTTPS and this is very obvious especially on sites with lots of images.
Browsers also sometimes have a different cache policy for HTTPS than HTTP.
But it's alright to put them into HTTPS as soon as they log on, or just before. At the point at which the site becomes personalised and non-anonymous, it can be HTTPS from there onwards.
It's a better idea to use HTTPS for the log on page itself as well as any other forms, as it gives the use the padlock before they enter their info, which makes them feel better.
I have always done it on the entire website.
I too would use HTTPS all the way. This doesn't have a big performance impact (since browser cache the negociated symmetric key after the first connection) and protects against sniffing.
Sniffing was once on its way out because of fully switched wired networks, where you would have to work extra hard to capture anyone else's traffic (as opposed to networks using hubs), but it's on its way back because of wireless networks, which create a broadcast medium once again an make session hijacking easy, unless the traffic is encrypted.
I think a good rule of thumb is forcing SSL anywhere where sensitive information is going to possibly be transmitted. For example: I'm a member of Wescom Credit Union. There's a section on the front page that allows me to log on to my online bank account. Therefore, the root page forces SSL.
Think of it this way: will sensitive, private information be transmitted? If yes, enable SSL. Otherwise you should be fine.
In our organization we have three classifications of applications -
Low Business Impact - no PII, clear-text storage, clear-text transmission, no access restrictions.
Medium Business Impact - non-transactional PII e.g. email address. clear-text storage, SSL from datacenter to client, clear-text in data center, limited storage access.
High Business Impact - transactional data e.g. SSN, Credit Card etc. SSL within and outside of datacenter. Encrypted & Audited Storage. Audited applications.
We use these criteria to determine partitioning of data, and which aspects of the site require SSL. Computation of SSL is either done on server or through accelerators such as Netscaler. As level of PII increases so does the complexity of the audit and threat modelling.
As you can imagine we prefer to do LBI applications.
Generally anytime you're transmitting sensitive or personal data you should be using SSL - e.g. adding an item to a basket probably doesn't need SSL, logging in with your username/password, or entering your CC details should be encrypted.
I only ever redirect my sites to SSL when it requires the user to enter sensitive information. With a shopping cart as soon as they have to fill out a page with their personal information or credit card details I redirect them to a SSL page.
For the rest of the site its probably not needed - if they are just viewing information/products on your commerce site.
SSL is pretty computationally intensive and should not be used to transmit large amounts of data if possible. Therfore it would be better to enable it at the checkout stage where the user would be transmitting sensitive information.
There is one major downside to a full https site and it's not the speed (thats ok).
It will be very hard to run Youtube, "Like"boxes etc without the unsecure warning.
We are running a full forces secured website and shop for two years now and this is the biggest drawback. We managed to get Youtube to work now but the "Add this" is still a big challenge. And if they change anything to the protocol then it could be that all our Youtube movies are blank...