Google & HTTPS

  • Thread starter Thread starter moo-tique
  • Start date Start date
It's old news. There might be a teeny tiny ranking advantage but for most sites it's just not worth the effort. As long as your payment pages are https there is no point in getting an SSL for the whole site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Simon.P
Upvote 0
fisicx is right, I was recently at an event where the speaker had worked on various large site implementations and the uplift they had was tiny. He noted that due to people making mistakes, many people actually lose traffic initially until they get it all sorted out.

Given the effort I'd only recommend it to someone whose business is so large that a tiny uplift actually represents a lot of money to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moo-tique
Upvote 0
Hey Dan, you should definitely check the official Google Webmaster's blog to validate. It's actually pointed that "it might" affect the ranking of a website.
 
Upvote 0
Regardless of how it affects Google positioning, your site (especially if you have any sort of CMS/Blog/ECommerce engine) should be accessible by HTTPS. If not, every time you or your customers login to your site you are potentially letting someone intercept their requests and data. This is even more of a concern if you ever login to your site from anyone else's wifi (even worse, insecure wifi) or network.
 
Upvote 0
It's old news. There might be a teeny tiny ranking advantage but for most sites it's just not worth the effort. As long as your payment pages are https there is no point in getting an SSL for the whole site.

That's extremely dangerous advise to be giving out.

As I mentioned above, your site should be accessible securely if you have any form of login, CMS, Blog, shop - anything where you submit data Encrypting your site is not expensive (less than £10/year) and there's rarely a good excuse for not doing it.

I encourage you to stop propagating the fact that only payment pages should be secured and look at securing your own sites (especially those WP sites which you charge £210 to install). Your own data and that of your customers (including, potentially, the password they/you use to login to other online services) should be treated with the upmost care.
 
Upvote 0
Using if for the whole site doesn't make it more secure it's only of real use if there it data transfer from the client to the server. Ergo, if the the client only receives data SSL isn't required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shopclicks
Upvote 0
As I said, anything where you submit data. However, many sites these days have some sort of login or admin session which would benefit from the security. I notice your own site has no valid SSL for logging in.
 
Upvote 0
If you have a purely informational website and want to do absolutely everything possible to improve your Google position, and have already addressed your content and layout (mobile + desktop) then I guess there's no harm in trying adding SSL. Google have implied they will be taking this into account at some point. In most cases it's probably not worth the effort, but it could provide a slight advantage.

Henfruit is absolutely right to say "it might" because nobody outside Google really knows for sure!

On the other hand, if your site contains any interactive content, user logins, shops, or any other situation where private data is sent in either direction, then the whole site should use SSL. Theoretically this is true even if the website only links to a shop hosted elsewhere. While protecting only the sensitive parts of the site is clearly a good start, this advantage could be wiped out by a hacker who interceted the user's connection before they reached the secured payment pages.
 
Upvote 0
I notice your own site has no valid SSL for logging in.
That's because it doesn't need it. I've done a lot of investigation on this and a long as you have strong passwords (which are encrypted on the server) and good admin security, SSL for simple admin logins is superfluous.

There in nothing wrong with using SSL if that's what you want to do but for most sites it's just not needed.
 
Upvote 0
That's because it doesn't need it. I've done a lot of investigation on this and a long as you have strong passwords (which are encrypted on the server) and good admin security, SSL for simple admin logins is superfluous.

There in nothing wrong with using SSL if that's what you want to do but for most sites it's just not needed.

Then your research is wrong I'm afraid. The strength of your password is irrelevant, as is how it is stored. Anyone with access to your traffic passing unencrypted over the internet will have full access to your website - to read your password as its transmitted or access your logged in Wordpress session.

The people who have access to your traffic include, but by no means limited to, your ISP and anyone who's wifi you connect to.

If there was a license to practice in the IT industry, you'd just have had it revoked due to your total misunderstanding of the risks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fisicx
Upvote 0
OK, well I'm no expert - installed SSL cert on a blog (no login stuff) in Jan
180l1e.png
 
Upvote 0
As I said, anything where you submit data. However, many sites these days have some sort of login or admin session which would benefit from the security. I notice your own site has no valid SSL for logging in.

That's because it doesn't need it.
There in nothing wrong with using SSL if that's what you want to do but for most sites it's just not needed.

"Anything where you submit data" indicates its gonna be the whole website. Is this recommended?

fisicx point. This kind of security really depends on the authority whether it will be needed or not.
 
Upvote 0
I think it depends on your website. We recommend that our clients get a HTTPS on their 'shopping basket' or on any login sections of the site, but I'm not sure if you need it on every page on your website. We suggest it just because it helps some users feel more secure (others don't even understand it).
 
Upvote 0
Anyone with access to your traffic passing unencrypted over the internet will have full access to your website - to read your password as its transmitted or access your logged in Wordpress session.

So wouldn´t this only be an issue if you are connecting via dodgy WIFI connections?

I guess for example If I had a travel blog and I was connecting via free WIFI spots all over the world to make posts it would be more of a concern.
 
Upvote 0
Anyone with access to your traffic passing unencrypted over the internet will have full access to your website - to read your password as its transmitted or access your logged in Wordpress session.
After much research it seems that my password includes security keys (SALT) before transmission so unless they have inserted a keylogger they won't be able to read my password when I login. And if I have been hacked and the are logging keystrokes SSL isn't going to help.

I'm going to get SSL but I'm just trying to identify the weak points in my current installation and I still can't find any.
 
Upvote 0
You're still missing the point. Once you have logged in, your browser will be sending a session cookie which will tells the server that you're authenticated. If anyone was to steal this information on the wire, they could login as you too without even needing your password.

I'd be interested to hear more about your salting thing. Not sure how this is going to work without storing the password in in a non-hashed format on the server or still being as vulnerable.
 
Upvote 0
So wouldn´t this only be an issue if you are connecting via dodgy WIFI connections?

I guess for example If I had a travel blog and I was connecting via free WIFI spots all over the world to make posts it would be more of a concern.

That's certainly one of the most vulnerable places, yes but it's not the only way that your connection can be intercepted. Even on your home internet connection your traffic will likely pass through a 3-4 other ISPs who may or may not be trusted to you.
 
Upvote 0
@adamcooke

Passwords are stored in the mysql database using a one way hash. Passwords go in but they can't come out. When you submit your password, it get's hashed and the hash is compared with what's in the DB. It appears that WP uses the Portable PHP password hashing framework. I've also checked the various WP cookies and passwords are not passed in plain text.
 
Upvote 0
@adamcooke

Passwords are stored in the mysql database using a one way hash. Passwords go in but they can't come out. When you submit your password, it get's hashed and the hash is compared with what's in the DB. It appears that WP uses the Portable PHP password hashing framework. I've also checked the various WP cookies and passwords are not passed in plain text.

I'm not really sure I have the energy to continue this discussion much longer but I'll try to convince you one last time...

With your hashing technique, if someone intercepts your connection, they would have your password hash at which point they can login to your site whenever they want using that hash. While they don't have the actual password they will still have access to do whatever they want to your site. I haven't used WP for a while but I doubt the password is hashed in the browser before submission, making this point moot.

Same applies to your cookies regardless of whether they're in plain text or not they can still be **used** by anyone who has them.
 
Upvote 0
The password is hashed in the browser before submission. Whilst I now agree SSL is a useful tool, if it were that easy to intercept wordpress logins there would be a lot of outcry from the millions of users. But there isn't. Which is why I'm not yet convinced by you assertion that my installation is insecure. And I've checked all my cookies and none of them have any sensitive info from which a listener could extract the password.
 
Upvote 0
I'm really trying to understand why my current set up is insecure. You were indicating I needed SSL because of plain text passwords and cookies. But they aren't plain text.

Where exactly is the insecurity? As I said, I'm getting an SSL but I trying to get to bottom of what exactly is insecure at the moment as it doesn't appear to be the login or the cookies.

Unless I'm being really dense I can't find anything on the WP or security forums that suggests the WP login or the comments forms have any vunerabilities.
 
Upvote 0
I'm really trying to understand why my current set up is insecure. You were indicating I needed SSL because of plain text passwords and cookies. But they aren't plain text.

Where exactly is the insecurity? As I said, I'm getting an SSL but I trying to get to bottom of what exactly is insecure at the moment as it doesn't appear to be the login or the cookies.

Unless I'm being really dense I can't find anything on the WP or security forums that suggests the WP login or the comments forms have any vunerabilities.

First things first, Wordpress does *NOT* hash the password client side, it submits the username and password straight to the server and expects you to take appropriate measures to ensure that you have . Unless you have a plugin installed which is modifying the default Wordpress authentication behaviour then this assumption is incorrect.

It is very easy to check this for yourself either normal web browser development tools or packet capturing software such as Wireshark (if you aren't using HTTPS) to examine the data that is sent over the wire.

Second, the fundamental concept that adamcooke is trying to explain to you is that if the connection between the browser and the server is not encrypted, then any data which is sent can be intercepted by an intermediate third party and that third party can then use that intercepted information to authenticate themselves with the server.

If you are sending the username and password in plain text over an unencrypted connection for the server to hash and then compare against the hash in the database, then the third party can capture those and send them to the server in order to authenticate themselves.

If you are hashing the password in the browser and sending that over an unencrypted connection for the server to compare to the copy stored in the database (which by the way either means you have to store the hashes with no salt or you have to send the salt to the browser over the same unencrypted connection) then the third party can simply intercept the hash and send that to the server in order to authenticate themselves.
All you have accomplished here is that the third party doesn't know the plain text password (although with no salt then it may be trivial to brute force the password depending on the hashing algorithm used), you haven't actually secured your authentication.

Once you have logged in and the server is using a session cookie to authenticate you, if you are sending that session cookie over an unencrypted connection then the third party can capture that session cookie and use it to pretend to be you and continue your existing authenticated session with the server.
The third party now doesn't know either the plain text password or the hash, but they still have full access to the administrative dashboard for your Wordpress installation (or whatever you were trying to secure in the first place).

Ultimately, the point is simple, if the server can use the data that you are sending over an unencrypted connection to authenticate you then anyone who can intercept that data can ultimately steal that data and be authenticated in exactly the same manner. The server has no way of distinguishing between you and the person replaying the data.

Also, you need to consider that if you aren't using SSL on your entire site then the third party can transparently proxy your unencrypted connections and modify your pages on the fly so that you submit your data to their servers instead of yours. Now you think you're secure because you have SSL on your login form, but you don't realise that you never even made it to that login form! Of course, to make sure that they don't get detected easily, once they have stolen your login details they pass your authentication request on to the server and you still get logged in, so you're none the wiser!
 
  • Like
Reactions: fisicx
Upvote 0
I would like to mention few recent developments here.
First is Wikipedia, largely informational website, adapted https recently. So number of https urls in SERPs increases hugely. And this is perhaps the reason why it came into lime-light again. Otherwise people's who have gone https didn't see any measurable benefit.

The second I want to mention is Mr.Gary Illyes (the whole https thing is his baby) told in this video that he will increase the signal value and working on that as well.

So tiny was and is right now but don't know how or whether it will increase or not.
 
Upvote 0
Me personally I love the 80/20 rule I don't think the HTTPS is in the top 5 ranking factors so why spend my time learning and then implementing this when I can spend my time doing the important top 5 things. However once i've done the top 5 things i'd consider doing this. Thats me personally
 
Upvote 0
We always advocate that the more secure the site (or the more of it that's secure) the better. This is for obvious reasons let alone anything to do with SEO.
 
Upvote 0
After installing SSLs I'm now seeing an increase in junk visitors form the USA. Today over 200 who landed and bounced. Before SSL bounce was well under 20%

So while it might be more secure the traffic it brings is now just garbage.
 
Upvote 0
Anyone fancy muddying the water with the difference between self-signed and EV certs? And that SSL goes hand-in-hand with your application/environment being secure as leakage can happen once data is received? Or really confuse matters with the same-origin policy...? :)
 
Upvote 0
Now that really is a proper discussion and probably one best had elsewhere.... but... in terms of Google (in the UK) and search results, you should not used a self-signed cert. It must be signed by a certificate authority. So long as it is signed by a certificate authority it does not matter what level of cert is being used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron Yates
Upvote 0
So long as it is signed by a certificate authority it does not matter what level of cert is being used.

Sort of, apart from Google is sunsetting SHA-1 hashed SSLs which includes many certificates issued in 2014 and valid for multi years. So at least your cert should be SHA-256. Whether it makes a difference for SERPS I don't know, but currently Chrome is showing warning triangle on the padlock (instead of green) for SHA-1's
 
Upvote 0
Google only require https on pages that take personal data (Including name and e-mail address), Other than that it is just one of 200+ factors
 
Upvote 0
I found that out in a conversation with our Google account manager, (blame Google is it wrong :)).

But in all seriousness it does add up. If you had choice for buying from two separate sites and all things were equal, (same product, same quality, same price) and one was secured and the other one wasn't which would you choose?

[removed by mod]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Latest Articles