We have a site that recently moved static theme images to Amazon S3 to offload some network traffic.

I put proper code in place to use HTTP or HTTPS depending on if they were on certain pages.

However, one particular page comes up as Mixed Mode SSL in Firefox and IE, Chrome reports it as secured. I don't see anything wrong with the page, all elements, CSS, JS and files are linked HTTPS to the source domain and to S3.

The only thing I notice is that 3-4 images come up as 302 Status Code when looking in the Chrome Resources inspector. Subsequent SSL pages come up as secured, and the only thing missing are those 3-4 images that are only on the storefront homepage. All other elements return status code 200, though I don't know what is different with these images, they work just like any of the others.

Any ideas?

  • Under Issued To? No, they don't. – Kevin Jul 21 '10 at 15:06
  • In Firefox, if you right-click the page and select View Page Info then go to the Media tab, do you see anything that is loading from http instead of https? – Robert Jul 21 '10 at 15:30
  • Nope, that was the first thing I did. All HTTPS sourced. – Kevin Jul 21 '10 at 15:35

Fire up network sniffer and capture the traffic from the browser to the servers. It will show you what is attempted to be loaded over HTTP vs HTTPS. The browser might be misleading and the network traffic is after all the authoritative source of data for the browser.

Alternatively, you can provide the URL if the site is public.

  • dogfish.com/store/index.htm – Kevin Jul 21 '10 at 15:28
  • Fiddler is a good browser request monitor tool to try. – Nate Jul 21 '10 at 16:06
  • Wireshark reports that dfhstore1.jpg, dfhstore2.jpg, dfhstore3.jpg, and dfhstore4.jpg are being loaded over HTTP. Looks like it's getting a redirect from the HTTPS site. – Chris S Jul 21 '10 at 16:08
  • If you pull up this link, you should see your browser gets redirected: dogfish.com/files/imagecache/billboard-default/files/billboard/… Gotta fix that on your server and you'll be set. This also should have been a problem before you implemented S3 BTW. – Chris S Jul 21 '10 at 16:14
  • Thanks! I see now that it was pulling from an HTTP source before outputting the file, and now it is fixed. – Kevin Jul 21 '10 at 17:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.