How does this site NOT have an SSL Certificate?

I find it quite ironic that a site about conspiracy theories that overwhelmingly values privacy does not have the most basic layer of website security. You all realize, that by this site not having an SSL, you are more open to privacy violations on here, than you are on sites you accuse of stealing your privacy.

SSLs are FREE nowadays for gods' sake.
letsencrypt.org...

None of you should sign in, view any articles, or post any text until they fix this. Unacceptable and unprofessional lack of protection on the site runners' parts.

Top risks of not having an SSL certificate on your website:

Misuse of data:
If you do not have an SSL certificate on your website, then all the confidential information on your site might be accessed by hackers. This may lead to leakage of personal data of your customers. These days, hackers can easily recognize vulnerable sites and cause disruptions which can be catastrophic.

MITM attacks:
MITM or Man in the Middle is a kind of attack where an attacker creates interference between two ends (server and browser). The attacker secretly alters the communication so that it can result in losses. Without an SSL certificate, all the communication traveling from the webserver to the client is accessible, which makes it easy for intruders to target such type of unsecured communication.

Benefits of an SSL:

1. Protecting the privacy of users
   
2. Assurance to users
   
3. Helps improve your site speed
   
4. Improves the user experience
   

a reply to: vegas.lurker

Didn’t you hear? We are in the mode of what ‘we can do” for this site.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not what this site can do for us.

Who cares about an SSL — when we may have no site at all.

This question has been answered several times. Search for it. I'd post a link to the thread, but you can look for it as easily as I. And you're the one that wants to know.

a reply to: vegas.lurker

please explain what " confidential data " ATS holds

Rather a moot point now, is it not? I find it quite ironic that you chose to bring this up now. Of course, you may simply not be paying attention.

a reply to: schuyler

He brought it up before...?

None of you should sign in, view any articles, or post any text until they fix this. Unacceptable and unprofessional lack of protection on the site runners' parts.


and yet you did

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: vegas.lurker
Who cares about an SSL — when we may have no site at all.

Well just a thought, but maybe revenue is dropping because browsers nowadays show a big "this site might not be secure" warning for non-https sites. In the case of safari, even requiring a password to access these sites.

So If you do happen to find what you are looking for though a search engine your first thought is gonna be NO FREAKING WAY!

Non-SSL sites are ranking far lower in search engines nowadays as well - FACT which would limit new visitors.

Less new visitors, lower visibility, possibility of bad security = less revenue.

And yes, I read the owners post about the CDN's etc .. and It doesn't Make sense to me, there are oodles of ways of changing URL's site wide to https, and most CDN's utilise SSL's now, even free CDN's, any advertiser worth their salt is using them too.

Longtern it's got to be worth the change.

But if they get SSL then your innermost thought workings can't be logged by your ISP or scanned and collected by the NSA. Private messages too.



a reply to: vegas.lurker

Not having an SSL certificate does affect your rankings in Google these days, I'm sure they added it to their list of things that helps SEO etc.

a reply to: cody599

Nice to see you Cody , its been a while.



To the OP
In the current situation WGAF , ATS has bigger fish to fry my friend.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: cody599

Nice to see you Cody , its been a while.

To the OP
In the current situation WGAF , ATS has bigger fish to fry my friend.

If what was said upthread about the certs borking their ability to rank above bottom of the barrel in just search returns is true AND the owners know it, it smacks of some pretty serious self-sabotage just on the SEO end we need to have answers on. THAT is the big fish, or rather one of them -- what isn't being said. No offense, but SO is definitely being cagey AF with details, and I do not buy the burn-out brush-offs. At least not entirely.

For crying out loud, the man waited until that thread's page count was in the 40's to mention they thought the site had 3-4 months left, and turned right around and said essentially "Nah, the clock's way shorter than that, sorry for the tease! And never you mind no mention of this in the OP."

To paraphrase, something goes beyond the pale for reek in Denmark.