<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: https for www.squarefree.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/</link>
	<description>Jesse Ruderman on Firefox, security, and more</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jesse Ruderman</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3753</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3753</guid>
		<description>DreamHost charges $4/mo for a unique IP address, which is more than most hosts charge.  (For example, Pair appears to charge $1/mo.)  I'm not sure why they charge so much; it might have something to do with their &lt;a href="http://blog.dreamhost.com/2005/09/26/something-dumb/" rel="nofollow"&gt;issues with ARIN&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DreamHost charges $4/mo for a unique IP address, which is more than most hosts charge.  (For example, Pair appears to charge $1/mo.)  I&#8217;m not sure why they charge so much; it might have something to do with their <a href="http://blog.dreamhost.com/2005/09/26/something-dumb/" rel="nofollow">issues with ARIN</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laurens Holst</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3752</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurens Holst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:17:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3752</guid>
		<description>"$47.40/year for a unique IP", that’s rediculous. Hopefully IPv6 will come soon. It seems to be picking up a little speed recently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;$47.40/year for a unique IP&#8221;, that’s rediculous. Hopefully IPv6 will come soon. It seems to be picking up a little speed recently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse Ruderman</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3750</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3750</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/10/22/483795.aspx" rel="nofollow"&gt;IE7 on Vista supports TLS Server Name Indication&lt;/a&gt;, but I get the impression that IE6 and IE7/XP don't support it.  Opera supports it.  I don't know about Safari.

DreamHost does not support TLS SNI, but they're tracking requests for it in the "Suggestions" part of the panel as "Use mod_ssl in Apache 2.2 to allow SSL without requiring a unique IP".

Why is &lt;a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116169" rel="nofollow"&gt;our bug for supporting TLS SNI&lt;/a&gt; still open?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/10/22/483795.aspx" rel="nofollow">IE7 on Vista supports TLS Server Name Indication</a>, but I get the impression that IE6 and IE7/XP don&#8217;t support it.  Opera supports it.  I don&#8217;t know about Safari.</p>
<p>DreamHost does not support TLS SNI, but they&#8217;re tracking requests for it in the &#8220;Suggestions&#8221; part of the panel as &#8220;Use mod_ssl in Apache 2.2 to allow SSL without requiring a unique IP&#8221;.</p>
<p>Why is <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116169" rel="nofollow">our bug for supporting TLS SNI</a> still open?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Baron</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3749</link>
		<dc:creator>David Baron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3749</guid>
		<description>Firefox now supports a TLS extension that allows HTTPS on a shared IP address.  (I've forgotten what it's called.)  Then again, other browsers probably don't, and dreamhost probably doesn't either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firefox now supports a TLS extension that allows HTTPS on a shared IP address.  (I&#8217;ve forgotten what it&#8217;s called.)  Then again, other browsers probably don&#8217;t, and dreamhost probably doesn&#8217;t either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3748</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3748</guid>
		<description>Jesse, 
When I read about your post I emailed the banks about the problem thinking the chances they read your blog was slim.

Before I read you post I didn't know the trick of typing the s manually to get https. I figured out you can also type a fake username and password and get to https.

Some of the banks have fixed this problem. Washington Mutual is one that I know has not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jesse,<br />
When I read about your post I emailed the banks about the problem thinking the chances they read your blog was slim.</p>
<p>Before I read you post I didn&#8217;t know the trick of typing the s manually to get https. I figured out you can also type a fake username and password and get to https.</p>
<p>Some of the banks have fixed this problem. Washington Mutual is one that I know has not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Lefevre</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3747</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Lefevre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/2007/06/18/https-for-wwwsquarefreecom/#comment-3747</guid>
		<description>That's cool, but you now get a broken padlock if you use https on your blog URLs.  Maybe you could deal with that by doing the reverse rewrite for the other sections (so that https://www.squarefree.com/ redirects to http://www.squarefree.com/) - although I can't think of a way to do that quite as neatly as your three rules, as it needs to happen everywhere except in those directories I guess...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s cool, but you now get a broken padlock if you use https on your blog URLs.  Maybe you could deal with that by doing the reverse rewrite for the other sections (so that <a href="https://www.squarefree.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.squarefree.com/</a> redirects to <a href="http://www.squarefree.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.squarefree.com/</a>) - although I can&#8217;t think of a way to do that quite as neatly as your three rules, as it needs to happen everywhere except in those directories I guess&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
