# SSL on Rails questions

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ssl-on-rails-questions/87187>\
**Category:** Deployment\
**Created:** [February 28, 2007, 7:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ssl-on-rails-questions/87187 "2007-02-28T19:36:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/wpwood)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2007, 7:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ssl-on-rails-questions/87187/1 "2007-02-28T19:36:44Z")

</div>

Greetings!

Please forgive the cross post. This is my first experience with  
implementing SSL, so I’m not even sure if this is an application  
development or deployment issue. I hope you’ll forgive the “stupid  
newbie” questions.

I’m going to install SSL over part of my app and will be using a cert  
from Geotrust. I’m considering two options: Quick SSL, and Quick SSL  
Premium ( [GeoTrust | SSL Digital Certificate Authority | Encryption & Authentication](http://www.geotrust.com/buy/certificate_compare.asp) ). The  
main difference is that QuickSSL has a static seal and the Premium has a  
“Dynamic seal stating transaction is secure. Displays real-time date /  
timestamp”

1. Does the seal go on all the secure pages?
2. Does the Dynamic seal pose any issues for Rails apps?

I’d really appreciate hearing from anyone with experience with this  
stuff.

Thanks,  
Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/wpwood)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2007, 1:06am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ssl-on-rails-questions/87187/2 "2007-03-01T01:06:48Z")

</div>

Bill W. said the following on 02/28/2007 01:36 PM:

> I’d really appreciate hearing from anyone with experience with this stuff.

Basically its all meaningless.

Go and real the POLICY documents behind them, the equivalent of the EULA  
and  
liability declarations.

The issue of ‘where’ is policy. If you miss out a SSL page they are not  
going to come and beat you up or take you to court for non-compliance.

The ‘dynamic’ seal is no different from any other such chunk of  
javascript-enabled dynamic update, like a clock or weather indicator.  
its not going to make your site more secure.

What will make you site more secure has little to do with SSL. Much has  
been written on that and advising on it is about 30% of my business.  
There  
are good books and papers out there; google and amazon are your friends.

SSL has many myths associated with it, and ‘security’ is one of them.  
All it does is encrypt the link. Even this isn’t very good as there are  
many appliances sold as tools for corporate gateways that can spoof the  
connection in a way that is really a man-in-the-middle attack.

If all you are doing is protecting what’s going on over the wire then a  
self-signed certificate is adequate. The Apache tools on my Linux box  
has  
all the stuff needed. I did this once, long ago, to try it out but s  
slips  
my memory right now.

What companies like Verisign are selling is a form of trustworthiness.  
Even  
that is a chimera. Let me explain why.

When you visit a site that purports to be Amazon and carry out a  
financial  
transaction you want to be sure that it really is Amazon you are dealing  
with, as well as securing the electrons over the wire. But if anyone  
can  
set up a self-signed cert then what? So we have ‘certificate  
authorities’  
like Verisign. The idea is that if the cert comes from Verisign then  
you  
can trust it.

Why?

Well, Verisign _should_ have verified that the company applying for the  
cert  
IS who they say there are, all the due diligence about their integrity,  
business practices, how they secure their network, their programming  
techniques, that they do own the domain and the IP addresses, and so on  
and  
so on and so on. All the stuff that I audit for in my "day job’.

But the reality is that they actually sell a whole pile of grades of  
certs.  
Some of them you just have to apply for and pay the money - the only  
thing  
they check is that the credit card transaction goes through.

This is not a put-down of Verisign or any other cert authority. Its  
marketing.

Read the licensing agreements. Unless they are doing a due diligence  
check  
on you as a business then what you are getting offers no more protection  
than a self signed cert.

However if you as a company need the marketing panash of displaying a  
known  
“badge” on your pages, then that’s another matter.

The issue is WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?

The way you’ve worded your question is open. If its asking about  
technical  
superiority, then technically ANY SSL certificate is equivalent to any  
other

- even a self signed one.

–  
Never look a gift horse in the mouth.  
Saint Jerome, On the Epistle to the Ephesians

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/wpwood)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ssl-on-rails-questions/87187/3 "2007-09-25T23:04:05Z")

</div>

Hi Anton,

I want to start by saying ‘thanks.’ I really appreciate the time you  
spent  
on this excellent post. It’s very helpful to me.

Anton A. wrote:

> Go and real the POLICY documents behind them, the  
> equivalent of the EULA and liability declarations.
> 
> The issue of ‘where’ is policy.

Excellent. That makes that easy. I’ll just do whatever they say I  
should  
do.

> The ‘dynamic’ seal is no different from any other such  
> chunk of javascript-enabled dynamic update, like a  
> clock or weather indicator.

My site already uses a bunch of js; both handcoded and RJS. From what  
you’ve said I’m guessing it won’t pose any new problems if I decide to  
go  
the Dynamic route. If there are any technical gotcha’s you know of wrt  
Rails / Mongrel / etc., I’d sure appreciate hearing about them.

> If all you are doing is protecting what’s going on over the  
> wire then a self-signed certificate is adequate.  
>   
> However if you as a company need the marketing panash  
> of displaying a known “badge” on your pages, then that’s  
> another matter.

I need both the wire protection and the marketing panash.

> The issue is WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?

Basics of the site are: Visitor enters or uploads/edits personal health  
information at my site, then saves it to their PC.

I need to provide the visitor with a secure link during the time their  
personal information is in my site or in transit to my site from their  
PC or  
in transit from my site to them. I need to make sure their information  
doesn’t get cached along the way. The in-transit issues are the  
technical  
ones I’m tackling with SSL. In addition to the technical side, though,  
I’m  
also trying to give them something recognizable that confirms what I’ve  
told  
them I’m doing to protect their information while it’s in transit or on  
my  
site. So that’s where the badge comes in. Do you know if, from a  
marketing  
perspective, there’s any data on consumer perception of one over the  
other?

I delete all their information from my site when they click the button  
that  
says ‘Remove My Info’, or if their session goes inactive for 5 minutes.  
I  
know SSL has nothing to do with that but I’d like to do something  
equally as  
recognizable as the badge that provides confirmation that their data is  
in  
fact getting deleted as I say it is. Any thoughts on where to start  
looking  
for that would be very much appreciated.

Thank you again for makiing the time to provide such a great reply. I  
really appreciate it.

Best regards,  
Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wpwood](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/wpwood)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2007, 11:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ssl-on-rails-questions/87187/4 "2007-09-25T23:08:03Z")

</div>

Bill W. said the following on 02/28/2007 03:18 PM:

> Hi Anton,
> 
> I want to start by saying ‘thanks.’ I really appreciate the time you spent  
> on this excellent post. It’s very helpful to me.

I should be charging for this 🙂

> Anton A. wrote:
> 
> > [big snip]

> I need both the wire protection and the marketing panash.

You need a LOT more, based on what I read from you.

> > The issue is WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?
> 
> Basics of the site are: Visitor enters or uploads/edits personal health  
> information at my site, then saves it to their PC.

Most places in the world you are also running into legal constraints as  
well as techncial ones.

Speak to a lawyer. You will need a privacy & compliance notice on your  
site  
and and an explicit ‘release’ from your users saying they understand and  
accept a whole pile of stuff. What stuff depends on the country,  
province  
or state you are in.

SEE A LAYER.

> I need to provide the visitor with a secure link during the time their  
> personal information is in my site or in transit to my site from their PC or  
> in transit from my site to them.

That’s your basics.

> I need to make sure their information  
> doesn’t get cached along the way.

You can’t do that.  
You can’t control where they come from - they may not be using “their  
own”  
PC. They may be accessing from work, from a kiosk, from a library, from  
an  
internet café or from a rogue wireless connection in an airport waiting  
lounge. See  
[http://www.intergovworld.com/Pages/Item/Article.aspx?id=f065d8b80a010408001a024c9ad85bf9](http://www.intergovworld.com/Pages/Item/Article.aspx?id=f065d8b80a010408001a024c9ad85bf9)

You have no control over where they access your site from, any  
firewalls,  
routers, proxies or anything else along the way. If one of those  
devices is  
something that, for example as part of their employers network  
infrastructure or the malicious machinations of the guy running the  
rogue  
wireless service (or the internet café for that matter) then tough.

THAT is why you need a layer to write your if-but-maybe agreement.

> The in-transit issues are the technical  
> ones I’m tackling with SSL. In addition to the technical side, though, I’m  
> also trying to give them something recognizable that confirms what I’ve told  
> them I’m doing to protect their information while it’s in transit or on my  
> site. So that’s where the badge comes in. Do you know if, from a marketing  
> perspective, there’s any data on consumer perception of one over the other?

An immense amount of stuff but I don’t keep it to hand. I’d have to go  
through past magazine. Googling for it would be quicker. Try some  
InfoSec  
sites.

> I delete all their information from my site when they click the button that  
> says ‘Remove My Info’, or if their session goes inactive for 5 minutes. I  
> know SSL has nothing to do with that but I’d like to do something equally as  
> recognizable as the badge that provides confirmation that their data is in  
> fact getting deleted as I say it is. Any thoughts on where to start looking  
> for that would be very much appreciated.

Other than asserting it and having them trust you, I can’t think of  
anything, and I can’t think why they should trust you, unless its some  
irrational extension of the the SSL badge. Rather like the people who  
think  
that the newspapers wouldn’t publish anything that wasn’t true. And,  
yes  
there are a lot of people out there who see the Internet like that or  
spamming wouldn’t be so profitable.

> Thank you again for makiing the time to provide such a great reply. I  
> really appreciate it.

You’re welcome.

Now go see a layer.

–  
Never forget: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  
So tread hard on good intentions. – rjd4
