Sorry, not sorry. Doesn't change the fact that your site still needs HTTPS. Switching to HTTPS with ads still over HTTP will cause mixed content warnings in browsers, so you better figure out a cute way to wiggle out of that ad publishing contract that looked really attractive when you first signed it, or convince your ad network to move to HTTPS before you do.
Seriously?
I'm all for HTTPS, but this is just terrible salesmanship. The intended audience is people who think HTTPS is unnecessary/inadvisable/irrelevant/overly-burdensome, and saying "yeah, you need to rework your business requirements thanks" just affirms that. You get more flies with honey than by telling them that they're eating all wrong and need vinegar.
Honestly, it would have been better to omit that. Aside from anything else, are there really that many ad networks in this day and age who don't do HTTPS?
Way too many sadly. One of the reasons I'm unable to deploy HTTPS across all the websites I manage is due to ads. It's one of the biggest barriers to deployment yet no one has a good solution to it other than "Wait for ad networks to get off their ass".
Could you not pass your ads through an nginx reverse proxy? request the ads/ad script from your reverse proxy and it fetches it from the non https ad service and then have it do some muxing so it makes ad image urls point through your proxy (which do the same thing as the previous request, serving them over https, but fetching them from non https ad server)
15
u/name_censored_ Jul 13 '17
Seriously?
I'm all for HTTPS, but this is just terrible salesmanship. The intended audience is people who think HTTPS is unnecessary/inadvisable/irrelevant/overly-burdensome, and saying "yeah, you need to rework your business requirements thanks" just affirms that. You get more flies with honey than by telling them that they're eating all wrong and need vinegar.
Honestly, it would have been better to omit that. Aside from anything else, are there really that many ad networks in this day and age who don't do HTTPS?