CloudFlare accelerator?

[TPerry]

I truly don't believe most end users could tell you the difference between an EV or DV certificate.

It's not the point of the difference in the "certificate" but a guarantee that the site you are on is a validated one. An EV certificate requires more for that guarantee. Anyone can get a DV certificate.

A big downside of the EV certs, well expect their cost, is their lifespan.

For a small company or individual business this does have bearing... but for a company making millions/billions per year it's miniscule.

It's obvious I question the fact if EV certs have any real value or not. I don't know one person who went to Google, Amazon, CapitalOne, or really any other site, looked for the company name instead of "Secure" and if they didn't see the company name said "the heck with this I'm outta here".

Well, you have met one now.... the sites that I know use an EV cert it is one thing I look for.

If users want to spend the big money for an EV cert so they can get the name next to the url then by all means ago head. But I personally don't believe 99% of our users could tell you the difference or even know why there is a difference (DV vs EV).

We aren't typically talking "users" but corporations. There is a difference. For Joe Blow on the street an EV really doesn't make sense... but for companies that are doing BIG money it does.

 

[WoodiE]

It's not the point of the difference in the "certificate" but a guarantee that the site you are on is a validated one. An EV certificate requires more for that guarantee. Anyone can get a DV certificate.

I'm fully aware of the differences and how to obtain either, but thanks. An EV cert doesn't make your site or users any more secure though.

We aren't typically talking "users" but corporations. There is a difference. For Joe Blow on the street an EV really doesn't make sense... but for companies that are doing BIG money it does.

Clearly this is the case, with the likes of Amazon and Google along with the 8 other top web sites NOT using an EV cert.

 

[TPerry]

As I said... just because YOU don't see the need for it, doesn't necessarily mean that others don't. They fill a need in that some companies WANT their site branded with it. That is a business decision that has to be made by said company/corporation.
They actually better serve the smaller business that don't have a national name brand as then you would know that they ARE who they say they are.
We all know that Amazon.com is Amazon... but do we know that joesbarandgrill.com is actually Joes Bar & Grill if we go to place an online order.
One can argue that those sites don't "need" to use it because they are already "known".
There is a perceived value in the EV certificate even if the underlying SSL technology is the same.

I get it.. you don't like them and see no use for them... but apparently you fail to realize that their ARE benefits to them. But again, it is a decision that the site owner(s) have to make.

 

[WoodiE]

Exactly. If that's what they are wanting, their name next to their URL then by all means an EV will do just that. I believe I even said that earlier.

That was my original question for Mick and that was the answer, to have the name next to the url.

 

[back]

EV is still very expensive compared to DV. If you have a SSL certificate you can get one free from CloudFlare, Auto SSL or Lets Encrypt,

 

[TPerry]

EV is still very expensive compared to DV. If you have a SSL certificate you can get one free from CloudFlare, Auto SSL or Lets Encrypt,

Yes... but for most businesses that would use one it's a considered a cost of doing business.
HP is a classic case... you go to their web site (hp.com) and you find that it's not SSL encrypted... BUT, when you go to their store (store.hp.com) you find that they are using an EV class certificate. That is is what I consider a good use of one. It guarantees that that you ARE on the HP store site - especially since they are using a sub-domain for their store.
They are just an easier way for the end user to confirm more easily that the site they are visiting is correct.
For most hobbyist sites (and even for those smaller business sites) if encryption is the only requirement then the DV's are fine. In fact, most hobbyist sites could not even meet the requirements for an EV certificate.

 

[WoodiE]

@back you are absolutely correct!

"most businesses..." except any of the top 10 internet websites or the many many many other company websites that DON'T use EV.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Full story here... https://scotthelme.co.uk/the-power-to-revoke-lies-with-the-ca/ The short version is that Ian (in above tweet) registered a company named "Stripe Inc", bought an EV cert and guess what - the end result was the exact same appearance that stripe.com is using... you know that one feature that "guarantees" you are on the correct site.

Good thing Ian isn't a bad guy.

Read the full story, it's a good read. EV's are good for one thing, and that's for the CA's who are selling them.

 

[Jeffin]

Has anyone tried Cloudflare Argo? Is it worth?

 

[Brent W]

@back you are absolutely correct!

"most businesses..." except any of the top 10 internet websites or the many many many other company websites that DON'T use EV.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Full story here... https://scotthelme.co.uk/the-power-to-revoke-lies-with-the-ca/ The short version is that Ian (in above tweet) registered a company named "Stripe Inc", bought an EV cert and guess what - the end result was the exact same appearance that stripe.com is using... you know that one feature that "guarantees" you are on the correct site.

Good thing Ian isn't a bad guy.

Read the full story, it's a good read. EV's are good for one thing, and that's for the CA's who are selling them.

Thanks for this and it was a great read.

 

[Sim]

Has anyone tried Cloudflare Argo? Is it worth?

Argo can be quite expensive - caution required.

I use it on one of my sites where most of my users are local, but my server is hosted off shore - I also make enough money off that site to justify the cost.

My other site which could probably benefit from Argo the most with a very diverse international audience - ended up costing a LOT to use Argo, and the site doesn't yet make enough money to justify that cost, so I turned it off. I will revisit in a few months when I relocate the server closer to where the majority of my users are to see if it improves costs.

 

[eva2000]

Argo is expensive as you pay for bandwidth basically. There's better ways to improve page speed times !

 

[Sim]

There's better ways to improve page speed times !

Don't forget that Argo only addresses network latency (and perhaps network congestion) - and optimising server/application response times won't fix network issues.

Of course, if your server's response time is measured in seconds, while Argo only managed to save you a few hundred milliseconds, it is a bit questionable whether it's worth the money and you'll certainly want to invest in optimising your server and application!

 

[eva2000]

Indeed.. i reduced my page load times a further 40-80% just by converting site to a progressive web app https://community.centminmod.com/th...sive-web-app-pwa-conversion.15286/#post-65486

 

[Sim]

Indeed.. i reduced my page load times a further 40-80% just by converting site to a progressive web app https://community.centminmod.com/th...sive-web-app-pwa-conversion.15286/#post-65486

Don't forget that the faster you manage to get your server/app response times, the greater impact (in percentage performance increase terms) that Argo will have for you @eva2000

(Taking 100ms off a 1 second load time is a 10% performance boost )

 

[eva2000]

Yeah but still not worth the $$$ that Argo costs !

 

[Sim]

Performance and cost are also very much dependent on the physical location of your server compared to the users who are accessing it.

I had vastly different performance (and cost) outcomes for my server based in Singapore serving a 95% Australian audience compared to a different site on the same server in Singapore serving a 40% US + 35% UK + 10% AU audience.

The Australian site costs less than half the international site for more than twice the traffic (ie around a 4x differential in costs between the two sites). Of course, there would also be much less benefit to users for the Australian site given there are only a couple of choices for getting traffic to/from Singapore. That being said, given that some AU ISPs seem to like routing AU-SG traffic via the US I would hope that Argo would be smart enough to optimise those paths

In a few months I'm going to relocate that international site to the east coast of the US to try and get it closer to the majority of my users and hopefully I get a better overall user experience for my users. Might try enabling Argo again then to see what impact it has and what the costs are compared to what they were based in Singapore - but again, the income that site generates is unlikely to be sufficient to justify those costs.

One other factor which would have been impacting on costs for that international site was that it was very image-heavy with a very large and active photo gallery. Given that Argo charges for bytes transferred - optimising the performance of an image heavy site is going to add a LOT to the costs.

 

[eva2000]

In a few months I'm going to relocate that international site to the east coast of the US to try and get it closer to the majority of my users and hopefully I get a better overall user experience for my users.

hmm geography correction - US West Coast is closest to Asia/Australia visitors not US East Coast US West Coast is my preferred location due to my geographic visitor make up being 50-55% US based and rest equal distrubution between Europe and Asia - with growing segment for Asia. US West Coast is geographically the middle of Europe and Asia/Oceania

 

[Sim]

hmm geography correction - US West Coast is closest to Asia/Australia visitors not US East Coast US West Coast is my preferred location due to my geographic visitor make up being 50-55% US based and rest equal distrubution between Europe and Asia - with growing segment for Asia. US West Coast is geographically the middle of Europe and Asia/Oceania

Traffic breakdown from the past 30 days:

48% Europe, 38% Americas, 13% Asia Pacific

I think US east coast is the better choice to get balance between Europe and AP.

I think the alternative of positioning it in Europe would hurt AP traffic - working on the assumption (and experience) that EU-US and AP-US traffic is better than EU-AP traffic.

 

[eva2000]

oh I thought you mean for Aussie visitor site heh

might want to break down continent stats down to sub-continent for clearer traffic patterns

 

[memo123]

Sorry but what is cloudflare and what it does