My company wants their "informational" website to be rewritten from HTTP to HTTPS. Technically this is not a big deal for me. But i have doubts if this is state-of-the-art since the only reason they want this, is to encrypt contact and sign up forms. (I could enable HTTPS for site with forms, however, they don't like that approach.)

What are the disadvantages and downturns of having an HTTPS only company website? What is your experience and recommendation?

Webapplications are running on another URL and are encrypted.


  • Maybe I'm missing something, but how do you rewrite something to be https? Wouldn't you just enable that site's pages to require SSL through the web server? Feb 1, 2010 at 15:33
  • 3
    Of course I would use mod_rewrite to forward http:// requests to https:// .
    – zero_r
    Feb 1, 2010 at 15:51

9 Answers 9


We run a few of our websites on HTTPS only, at request of company administrators who wanted to give out a "We take your privacy really really seriously" message, and apart from the need for a dedicated IP address for each site, we've never noticed any drain on our servers.

These are all low-traffic sites, maybe 1000-5000 hits a day, mostly from return visitors.

With HTTPS, you may also loose:

  • Client-side caching (Caching HTTPS is usually considered a no-no, but if you explicitly specify an expires header some browsers will still cache it)
  • Fast load times for dialup/high latency users (the HTTPS handshake is negligable for broadband, but quite noticable for dialup or people in Thailand)

If these things don't worry you (they didn't to our users or companies) then I say go for it - no point in arguing!

  • I realise this is an old answer, but the HTTPS not caching thing was always largely a myth. Browsers will still obey your caching directives as they would without HTTPS, ie they will treat something with "Expires" or "Cache-control: max-age=xx" the same way and do the same conditional requests and stuff. All you lose is caching by public proxies which is not a loss and kind of the point of HTTPS. The point about latency is absolutely right though, which is mitigated a little with new technology like TLS False Start, but not completely. Aug 12, 2015 at 13:16

If the website is accessible from anyone anyway there is no real point in HTTPS besides enabling it for the forms, since anyone can read the page anyway. On the other hand the impact HTTPS has on the Server is really low, especially if you are running some dynamic page anyway which is going to make the impact HTTPS has really unnoticeable. My recommendation would be just turning it on in the Web server, because there is nothing to rewrite really, if you ever get to a Situation where your server is going to need this little performance which is taken away by HTTPS you could turn it off, but you probably won't solve your performance issues doing it if there are any.

So in short just keep yourself from the hassle fighting about something like this and just turn it on ;)


HTTPS is slightly slower and slightly more processor intensive.

HTTP can be read by any schmuck with a packet sniffer.

  • 1
    Slightly slower doesn't begin to describe the pain this would inflict upon users on high latency and/or low bandwidth connections! Feb 1, 2010 at 20:57
  • 2
    Meh. If it needs to be secure, it needs to be secure. Feb 2, 2010 at 1:20

Advantages to using SSL:

  • Sensitive information is not sent in the clear

Disadvantages to using SSL:

  • Certificates and processes for renewal costs time and money.
  • If you mess up the certificate, you are going to look silly in a very public way.
  • CPU usage increases, making your website load slower. Measure the difference.
  • Browsers don't cache objects fetched over https, so your bandwidth use will increase and visitors will experience your site as being slower, because each object is fetched over the network. Estimate increased bandwidth usage based on current traffic usage.

Don't use mod_rewrite for this. Use http 301 or 302 redirects.

  • Your points are valid. Just a small note: mod_rewrite supports 301 and 302 redirects just fine, and would indeed be the tool I'd use to force https. Feb 1, 2010 at 21:06
  • Https is cached, the only restriction is some of it won't end up on disk. Details here: stackoverflow.com/questions/174348/…
    – Tobu
    Feb 1, 2010 at 22:20

You will need to remember to buy and renew SSL certificates from a globally recognized root certificate provider. If you forget to renew, there goes your whole site with an error message.

  • Well you can still go to the site, just get a "Oh my God this might be evil" Message, which most Users just click trough anyway. But I guess if they got other SSL Sites, they already got the needed Certs. Feb 1, 2010 at 16:45

Encrypting only form submission protects against casual snooping, but a man in the middle would simply rewrite form submission to go to a plain http url. If the forms are important, the form submission page should be https as well and the form users should be given a short https url to type and bookmark. If your entire site redirects to https pages, you'll get indexed in https and users won't have to rely on typing anymore.

It's a question of what threat model you want to defend against, at the cost of certificates and a bit of cpu.


I find it interesting that just about every site I visit uses HTTPS where security is required and HTTP elsewhere. I expect that is because of the overheads imposed by HTTPS, as others have already mentioned.


See my answer on a question. While that original question was regarding JBoss and AJP the answer included a mod_rewrite ruleset that redirects non-HTTPS traffic to HTTPS.


HTTPS will slow your web site down, but not for the reasons that others have suggested. It will not "suck your CPU", rather it just increases latency by adding SSL handshakes to the TCP handshakes for each connection. This can cause performance to drop a great deal in situations where many connections are required to load the page (e.g. lots of images etc) especially if you've got HTTP keepalives off.

Having the entire site on HTTPS certainly makes development easier - the whole site on HTTPS means your devs don't need to worry about which bits need to be HTTP and HTTPS, and which pages need to switch from one to another, and composing absolute links to those etc.

Previously I've worked on e-commerce sites which used a mixture and it gets pretty hairy trying to switch from secure / non-secure at the appropriate pages, particularly if your site layout and navigation is complicated and reused from one page to another (which it usually is in most sites)

See paypal.com for an example of someone who chose to just put their entire site HTTPS. But I notice that banks rarely do it.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .