<story><title>Bing doesn&apos;t support SSL</title><url>https://bing.com/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>casca</author><text>TL;DR: bing SSL certificate is wrong.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://bing.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://bing.com&lt;/a&gt;: subject=/CN=*.bing.com&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.bing.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.bing.com&lt;/a&gt;: subject=/C=US/O=Akamai Technologies, Inc./CN=a248.e.akamai.net</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rhplus</author><text>TL;DR: Bing doesn&apos;t support SSL on www.bing.com and has never publicized it as a supported feature. The submitter had to manually type &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.bing.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.bing.com&lt;/a&gt; into the address bar to generate this &apos;error&apos;.&lt;p&gt;Bing does support SSL on ssl.bing.com and publishes various links on that sub-domain, such as &lt;a href=&quot;https://ssl.bing.com/webmaster/home/mysites&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://ssl.bing.com/webmaster/home/mysites&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The fact that the &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.bing.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.bing.com&lt;/a&gt; redirects to the HTTP version should be enough to show that this a known, unsupported case on the primary domain. The behavior has been like that for years.</text></comment>
<story><title>Bing doesn&apos;t support SSL</title><url>https://bing.com/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>casca</author><text>TL;DR: bing SSL certificate is wrong.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://bing.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://bing.com&lt;/a&gt;: subject=/CN=*.bing.com&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.bing.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://www.bing.com&lt;/a&gt;: subject=/C=US/O=Akamai Technologies, Inc./CN=a248.e.akamai.net</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>freehunter</author><text>Working in information security, I see this far, far too often in support tickets from employees who are unable to get to a site because our proxy is blocking misconfigured certificates. Usually we like to reach out to the owner of the site and have them update their configuration, and it gets quite frustrating when we find an unresponsive organization. Having to bypass cert checking  for a site on our end is a huge security risk, and defeats the purpose of even having an SSL cert.&lt;p&gt;Companies! Make sure your certs are all in order! There&apos;s no reason to send a page to your users over HTTPS if they can&apos;t trust the certificate. Canonical has been a long-time offender of this, with many of their pages sporting a certificate signed to canonical.com but being served by ubuntu.com.</text></comment>