26

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

Whether t>>> It is possible to use multidomain SSL on different physical servers AB>> Yes. And why there were doubts? T> then it was possible all swung one certificate with  and . Except the certificate (which it is public) it is required to you also a key for enciphering, and its server gives to nobody. So the general certificate on many servers it is normal (the main thing that keys did not flow away further your servers).

27

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

Ops> Here what for it this https it is absolute everywhere, I cannot understand For example that the provider did not interpose all that to it wants in loaded page. https://habrahabr.ru/post/262631/

28

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

Hello, Masterspline, you wrote: M> For example that the provider did not interpose all that to it wants in loaded page. At me does not interpose, and for the provider in most cases it is possible to vote feet. But the question not about it is to Google that before?

29

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

Hello, Masterspline, you wrote: M> For example that the provider did not interpose all that to it wants in loaded page. M> https://habrahabr.ru/post/262631/Where you find such providers?

30

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

31

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

Hello, Ops, you wrote: Ops> M> For example that the provider did not interpose all that to it wants in loaded page. Ops> at me does not interpose, and for the provider in most cases it is possible to vote feet. But the question not about it is to Google that before? To Google before practically the same: *) to accelerate content delivery to users (here they rest hopes on HTTP/2, which were SPDY). *) that everyones left  it, Google, advertizing did not cut/replaced/added the. *) that everyones left  not  interests of users, and Google would do it exclusively. *) to reduce an amount of the cracked accounts => spam and other garbage content => loading by own infrastructure. Well etc. Bekapimsja on Yandex. A disk

32

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

Hello, Anton Batenev, you wrote: AB> *) to accelerate content delivery to users (here they rest hopes on HTTP/2, which were SPDY). The Dead duck, same it is necessary to alter sites that PUSH used, change of the protocol gives of nothing, even can decelerate, because of requests of the withdrawn certificates. And whether  to Google? AB> *) that everyones left  it, Google, advertizing did not cut/replaced/added the. To cut just not difficult directly in the browser. But it though in something reasonable argument. AB> *) that everyones left  not  interests of users, and Google would do it exclusively. And what here hinders? That the master of a site allocated, and , though with SSL, though without. AB> *) to reduce an amount of the cracked accounts => spam and other garbage content => loading by own infrastructure. And what, often break,  passwords? Well, in comparing with attempts 12345? On those : It can wants under itself more  to crush, that most in the traffic to look without .

33

Re: Multidomain certificate SSL

Hello, Ops, you wrote: Ops> AB> *) to accelerate content delivery to users (here they rest hopes on HTTP/2, which were SPDY). Ops> the Dead duck, same it is necessary to alter sites that PUSH used, change of the protocol gives of nothing, even can decelerate, because of requests of the withdrawn certificates. And whether  to Google? PUSH it is not mandatory - multiplexing and compression can well accelerate loading. On well made sites the effect does not prove to be true, and here on any dustbins,  advertizing, the effect can quite be. OCSP (if you mean it under "request of the withdrawn certificates") can go it is direct the server in installation process of connection with a minimum overhead charge. And to Google not  therefore as the amount  (it is equal money) directly depends on load time speed of pages. Ops> AB> *) that everyones left  it, Google, advertizing did not cut/replaced/added the. Ops> to Cut just not difficult directly in the browser. But it though in something reasonable argument. In the browser is an explicit desire of the user, here problems are not present (is more precisely, but there struggle goes with ). In the transmission channel is a desire left  which can hinder a main objective. Ops> AB> *) that everyones left  not  interests of users, and Google would do it exclusively. Ops> and what here hinders? That the master of a site allocated, and , though with SSL, though without. Besides, it is a question about an intermediate link, instead of about interacting subjects. For example, WiFi in transport can on the basis of this data  the advertizing to passengers depriving of the income Google. There are quite real projects of tracing of visitors in the big shopping centers. In one country even there is a law on total listening of the traffic of all users Ops> AB> *) to reduce an amount of the cracked accounts => spam and other garbage content => loading by own infrastructure. Ops> and what, often break,  passwords? Well, in comparing with attempts 12345? While HTTPS was exotic broke often (almost any big public WiFi suffered it). Now, certainly, a vector drift in other sides (antiviruses and various the software putting the root entrusted certificate, phishing, interception SMS, various vulnerability). Ops> On those : it can wants under itself more  to crush, that most in the traffic to look without .   should be public - for secret transactions deprive of trust (WoSign + StartSSL). And strongly risky it - through scripts Google Analytics which are practically on each site, requests in search and the analysis of mail and so it is possible to receive a lot of information.  on Yandex. A disk