penteract 2 days ago

> Why would anyone pick the flexible/potentially-insecure option?

Because having a connection that's encrypted between a user and Cloudflare, then unencrypted between Cloudflare and your server is often better than unencrypted all the way. Sketchy ISPs could insert/replace ads, and anyone hosting a free wifi hotspot could learn things your users wouldn't want them to know (e.g. their address if they order a delivery).

Setting up TLS properly on your server is harder than using Cloudflare (disclaimer: I have not used Cloudflare, though I have sorted out a certificate for an https server).

The problem is that users can't tell if their connection is encrypted all the way to your server. Visiting an https url might lead someone to assume that no-one can eavesdrop on their connection by tapping a cross-ocean cable (TLS can deliver this property). Cloudflare breaks that assumption.

Cloudflare's marketing on this is deceptive: https://www.cloudflare.com/application-services/products/ssl... says "TLS ensures data passing between users and servers is encrypted". This is true, but the servers it's talking about are Cloudflare's, not the website owner's.

Going through to "compare plans", the description of "Universal SSL Certificate" says "If you do not currently use SSL, Cloudflare can provide you with SSL capabilities — no configuration required." This could mislead users and server operators into thinking that they are more secure than they actually are. You cannot get the full benefits of TLS without a private key on your web server.

Despite this, I would guess that Cloudflare's "encryption remover" improves security compared to a world where Cloudflare did not offer this. I might feel differently about this if I knew more about people who interact with traffic between Cloudflare's servers and the servers of Cloudflare's customers.

  • mort96 2 days ago

    > Setting up TLS properly on your server is harder than using Cloudflare

    This is probably technically true, but setting up TLS properly on your server is really ridiculously simple.

    • tracker1 2 days ago

      These days, absolutely... I usually use Caddy for reverse proxy chores and it's been a great option to deal with. Traefic hasn't been bad either.

    • ffsm8 2 days ago

      ...in 2025

      Let's encrypt and ACME hasn't always been available. Lots of companies also use appliances for the reverse proxy/Ingress.

      If they don't support ACME, it's actually quite the chore to do - at least it was the last time I had to before acme was a thing (which is admittedly over 10 yrs ago)

wavesquid 2 days ago

Historically?

1. Because TLS certificates were not free

2. Because firewall was "enough" in most people's minds

3. Because TLS was the most CPU intensive part of serving a static site

4. Because some people were using cheap shared hosting providers that upcharged for TLS

KomoD 2 days ago

> * Why would anyone pick the flexible/potentially-insecure option?

I pick it whenever I don't want to setup HTTPS on my origin but still want HTTPS. Just for projects where I really don't care.