I run a web server with a bunch of websites, all of which need an SSL
connection. Instead of buying a big block of new IP addresses, I'm
thinking of running the SSL virtual hosts on non-standard ports, like
444, 445, etc. (just an example... I'd probably use a higher set of
numbers.)
Since the only time visitors use the SSL connection is when they are
accessing private info or checking out, all of which are reached by
clicking internal links, I don't see any reason why this should be a
problem.
In other words, if a user on sample.com wants to login, for example,
he'd click the 'login' link, which has an address like http://
sample.com:444/login.html
I don't see any reason why a normal visitor would have to type an
https address for these particular websites, so they won't every have
to enter the port # by hand.
Even if a visitor bookmarked a secure page, they would bookmark the
port.
This seems like a very simple way to conserve IP addresses. I've
tested it all, and it works fine. Am I missing some serious downside?
The only problem I can see is that I have to open more ports on my
firewall, but I don't see why 444 should be any more vulnerable than
443.
Why don't you see more SSL addresses like this? Why shouldn't I do this?
Any comments, much appreciated.
Brgds: John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
" from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
