Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in October 2015

Rank Performance Graph OS Outage
DNS Connect First
1 Inc Linux 0:00:00 0.000 0.255 0.007 0.019 0.019
2 Swishmail FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.000 0.153 0.062 0.123 0.166
3 XILO Communications Ltd. Linux 0:00:00 0.000 0.224 0.063 0.126 0.126
4 Datapipe Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.156 0.012 0.025 0.032
5 Qube Managed Services Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.148 0.043 0.088 0.088
6 EveryCity SmartOS 0:00:00 0.004 0.092 0.066 0.133 0.133
7 Anexia Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.187 0.085 0.171 0.172
8 Hivelocity Hosting Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.185 0.091 0.181 0.181
9 Bigstep Linux 0:00:00 0.013 0.160 0.060 0.122 0.122
10 Memset Linux 0:00:00 0.013 0.157 0.063 0.160 0.246

See full table

For the third month in a row, GoDaddy has had the most reliable hosting company site. It responded to every availability request made by Netcraft throughout October, with an average connection time of just 7 milliseconds. This is the sixth time this year that GoDaddy has featured in the top ten.

On 29 October, GoDaddy announced a new 'best-in-class' partner offer with AdAgility for customers of its GoDaddy Pro programme. This additional feature allows web designers and developers to take greater control over the advertising content on their sites.

Swishmail has risen to second place for reliability this month. This is now its third appearance in the top ten since January, with the last appearance—in July—placing it tenth. Like GoDaddy, Swishmail responded to all of the availability requests made by Netcraft throughout October; however, the average connection time sat higher at 62 milliseconds.

XILO Communications Ltd. saw a return to the top three most reliable hosting companies this month for the first time since January. Like GoDaddy and Swishmail, 100% of the availability requests made by Netcraft received a response. With an average connection time of 63 milliseconds, this makes it the eighth time this year that XILO Communications Ltd. has made it into the top ten.

Yet again, the table this month is dominated by Linux, which is used by eight of the top ten sites. EveryCity uses the SmartOS community fork of OpenSolaris, while Swishmail uses the FreeBSD operating system. This is now the fourth month in a row where Microsoft Windows has been completely absent from the top ten.

Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of around forty leading hosting providers' sites. The performance measurements are made at fifteen minute intervals from separate points around the internet, and averages are calculated over the immediately preceding 24 hour period.

From a customer's point of view, the percentage of failed requests is more pertinent than outages on hosting companies' own sites, as this gives a pointer to reliability of routing, and this is why we choose to rank our table by fewest failed requests, rather than shortest periods of outage. In the event the number of failed requests are equal then sites are ranked by average connection times.

Information on the measurement process and current measurements is available.

Nigerian government serving up fresh phish

The Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria is currently serving a webmail phishing site from its own government domain.

The phishing content is based on a ready-to-go phishing kit that is distributed as a zip file. It contains easily-customisable PHP scripts and images designed to trick victims into surrendering either their Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or AOL passwords.

Gmail phishing content served from a Nigerian government website.

Gmail phishing content served from a Nigerian government website.

In this case, the kit has been deployed within an images directory on a Nigerian government website at, which suggests that the site may have been compromised by a remote attacker. The same phishing kit has also been used to deploy phishing sites on several other websites over the past nine months.

After a victim enters his or her email credentials into the phishing site, both the username and password are transmitted via email directly to the fraudster. These emails also contain the victim's IP address, and a third-party web service is used to deduce which country the victim is in.

After stealing the victim's email credentials, the phishing site inexplicably redirects the browser to the Saatchi Art investment website at This does not appear to be in any way connected to the fraudulent activity.

One of the PHP scripts found within the phishing kit.

One of the PHP scripts found within the phishing kit.

Unlike conventional phishing attacks against banks, attacks that aim to harvest email credentials typically have no immediate financial return; but access to a single victim's email account can often facilitate unauthorised access to several other accounts. With minimal effort, the fraudster can easily discover which websites the victim uses, and then submit password reset requests to those websites. As a bonus, the compromised email account can also be abused to send phishing emails to additional victims, as well as providing a source of valid email addresses.

The majority of Nigeria's government websites, including the one operated by the Financial Reporting Council, are hosted in the United States. It is not apparent how the phishing content has ended up on, although one possible route of compromise could be the unsupported Joomla! CMS software installed on the server. It is still using Joomla! 2.5.28, which reached End of Life status at the end of 2014, meaning that it no longer receives security updates or bug fixes.

However, the Joomla! Security Centre does not document any publicly-known vulnerabilities that affect version 2.5.28. Nonetheless, the use of unsupported software on a public-facing website often catches the attention of hackers, as it is generally indicative of poor security practices elsewhere, and thus attracts further scrutiny. Unless the server was compromised via an undocumented 0-day vulnerability in Joomla!, it may well have been compromised via a different route.

U.S. military cyber security fails to make the grade

The United States Department of Defense is still issuing SHA-1 signed certificates for use by military agencies, despite this practice being banned by NIST for security reasons nearly two years ago. These certificates are used to protect sensitive communication across the public internet, keeping the transmitted information secret from eavesdroppers and impersonators. The security level provided by these DoD certificates is now below the standard Google considers acceptable for consumer use on the web.

The Missile Defense Agency, the eventual successor to the "Star Wars" programme, uses one of these SHA-1 certificates on a Juniper Networks remote access device. The SHA-1 certificate was issued by the Department of Defense in February 2015, long after NIST declared this practice to be unacceptable.

The Missile Defense Agency operates a remote access service which uses a SHA-1 signed certificate, making it vulnerable to impersonation and man-in-the-middle attacks.

The Missile Defense Agency operates a remote access service which uses a SHA-1 signed certificate issued earlier this year. This makes the site vulnerable to impersonation and man-in-the-middle attacks that would facilitate unauthorised access to data.

The National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) is charged with "developing standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements, for providing adequate information security for all agency operations and assets", though its requirements "shall not apply to national security systems". Whilst these Department of Defense systems may or may not be considered national security systems, it is difficult to see why they would be subject to requirements any less stringent than those recommended by NIST.

The SHA-1 algorithm was first published in 1995 and is no longer considered secure. NIST's decision to disallow SHA-1 signature generation after 2013 was originally due to concerns surrounding the cryptographic strength of the algorithm. Back then, it was thought quite likely that future advancements in computing technology and the discovery of new attacks would allow attackers to find SHA-1 hash collisions, and thus be able to impersonate any secure website with a seemingly valid SSL certificate. This prediction appears to have come true, with the latest research suggesting that the cost of using cloud computing resources to find a SHA-1 hash collision is now in the region of $75k, or perhaps even only a week's use of the largest botnets.

The majority of SHA-1 signed SSL certificates issued for use on publicly-accessible websites within the past few months, and that are valid beyond the start of 2017, were issued to hostnames under the .mil sponsored top-level domain. This sTLD is used by agencies, services and divisions of the United States Department of Defense.

A U.S. Navy .mil website, which uses a SHA-1 signed certificate issued earlier this year.

A U.S. Navy .mil website, which also uses a SHA-1 signed certificate issued earlier this year.

Many other SHA-1 certificates used by .mil websites are valid beyond the start of 2017, which means that Google Chrome already regards them as affirmatively insecure, crossing out the padlock icon:


The security of some of these sites is further undermined by their use of TLS 1.0 connections, even though most users' browsers are likely to support later versions. TLS 1.0 is now considered weak and obsolete, with some standards bodies such as the PCI SSC mandating that it should no longer be used in new applications, and that existing applications must migrate to TLS 1.1 or later by June 2016.

Obsolete TLS 1.0 connection used by a military remote access service.

Obsolete TLS 1.0 connection used by a military remote access service.

But disabling support for TLS 1.0 is not always feasible, particularly as some older browsers such as Internet Explorer 8 do not support TLS 1.1 and 1.2. If it is essential for a server to retain support for TLS 1.0 (in addition to later versions), then TLS Fallback SCSV must be used to prevent downgrade attacks against clients that support TLS 1.1 or later. This will ensure that modern browsers will always use acceptably secure versions of TLS, while only the older clients can possibly use the weak, obsolete TLS 1.0 cipher suites.

Several other U.S. military remote access services only support the obsolete TLS 1.0 protocol, including two used by the Defense Logistics Agency. Some other military sites, including one of the Navy's VPN services do support TLS 1.2, but with obsolete cipher suites. These particular sites all use SHA-1 signed certificates that do not expire until 2017, and so are regarded as "affirmatively insecure" by Chrome.

DoD PKI infrastructure

The Department of Defence PKI infrastructure relies on two root certificate authorities (DoD Root CA 2 and DoD Root CA 3), but these are not included in all browsers by default.

Windows and Linux users must explicitly install the DoD root certificates in order for the subscriber certificates to be validated and trusted by their browsers. But interestingly, the DoD roots are trusted on Apple platforms by default; this means that the DoD has the necessary third-party attestation for inclusion in the Apple Root Certificate Program, even though many of the subscriber certificates fail to conform to the Baseline Requirements for the issuance and management of publicly-trusted certificates.

The U.S. Government has faced numerous hurdles in being recognised as a publicly-trusted certificate authority. In 2009, the Federal Public Key Infrastructure Management Authority (US FPKI) requested for its Federal Common Policy Framework Certificate Authority (Common Policy CA) root certificate to be added to Firefox and other Mozilla products. Only subscriber certificates for .gov and .mil domains would have been trusted under this root, but the request was eventually put On Hold in May 2015. It was decided that US FPKI should be treated as a Super-CA, whose subordinate CAs must apply for inclusions themselves.

One of the arguments for accepting the US government as a publicly-trusted certificate authority was that it would avoid the need to purchase commercial certificates and thus save taxpayer dollars. One viable alternative might have been to use the free Let's Encrypt certificate authority, which became trusted by all major browsers this week. However, the cross-signed Let's Encrypt Authority X1 intermediate certificate uses the X509v3 Name Constraints field to explicitly disallow its use by .mil domains. No other top-level domains are precluded from using Let's Encrypt.

Many .mil sites recommend using the InstallRoot tool to simplify the installation and management of the DoD root certificates on Windows machines. This tool also installs several intermediate certificates, which the Department of Defense uses to directly sign the subscriber certificates.


As an example, the subscriber certificate issued to was signed on 19 March 2015 by the DOD CA-27 intermediate, which is signed by the DoD Root CA 2 trusted root. This chain of trust allows the browser to verify that is a legitimate site operated by a Department of Defense agency, and that the connection is not being subjected to a man-in-the-middle attack.


These intermediate certificates are also signed with the arguably weak SHA-1 algorithm. Whilst not the most likely way in which SHA-1 will initially fail — a chosen-prefix attack such as the one used on MD5 in the Flame malware is more likely — if any of these intermediate certificates were to be targeted to find a collision, it would be possible for an attacker to generate valid subscriber certificates for any domain. This would allow the attacker to convincingly impersonate U.S. military sites and carry out man-in-the-middle attacks against browsers that trust the DoD root certificates.

The DOD CA-27 intermediate certificate that was used to issue the subscriber certificate for is valid until September 2017 and has a SHA-1 signature.

The DOD CA-27 intermediate certificate that was used to issue the subscriber certificate for is valid until September 2017 and has a SHA-1 signature.

Chrome also warns users when intermediate certificates are signed with SHA-1.

Chrome also warns users when intermediate certificates are signed with SHA-1.

Although the DoD PKI infrastructure is not trusted by all browsers, it is nonetheless surprising to see it flouting some of the well-founded rules and recommendations that apply to publicly trusted certificates as well as recommendations made by NIST. Many of these guidelines are backed by valid security concerns – in particular, using SHA-1 for signature generation is now considered ill-advised, as any well-funded attacker can plausibly compromise the affected certificates.

The risk to the Department of Defense is further heightened by enemy goverments being the most likely sources of attack. The projected cost of attacking SHA-1 is unlikely to be prohibitive, and some governments may already be in a position to find a hash collision faster than the most organised criminals.

One million SSL certificates still using “insecure” SHA-1 algorithm

Nearly a million SSL certificates found in Netcraft's October SSL Survey were signed with the potentially vulnerable SHA-1 hashing algorithm, and some certificate authorities are continuing to issue more. Google Chrome already regards these certificates as insecure, resulting in more warning signals than if the sites had been served over a completely unencrypted HTTP connection.

The latest research, dubbed the SHAppening, shows that these warnings are well founded, projecting that a full SHA-1 collision could be found within 49-78 days on a 512-GPU cluster. Renting the equivalent processing time on Amazon's EC2 cloud computing service would cost only $75k-$120k, which is an order of magnitude less than earlier estimates. The researchers point out that this represents an important alarm signal, and that the industry's plans to move away from SHA-1 by 2017 might not be fast enough.

The researchers consider that is now feasible [pdf] for a well funded attacker to impersonate an SSL site that uses a publicly trusted SHA-1 certificate. Worse still, while browsers still accept SHA-1 signatures, SSL sites remain at risk even after migrating to SHA-2: if an attacker were to compromise an intermediate CA certificate signed with SHA-1, he could generate valid certificates for arbitrary domains.

The SHA-2 and SHA-3 family of cryptographic hash algorithms are now the only ones approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for digital signature generation. Although the SHA-2 family includes SHA-224, only the stronger SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512 algorithms are allowed by the CA/Browser Forum's Baseline Requirements for the issuance and management of publicly-trusted certificates.

These newer algorithms do not exhibit the mathematical weaknesses of SHA-1, and also generate longer digests than the 160-bits computed by SHA-1. Almost all new SHA-2 subscriber certificates use SHA-256 (99.99%), while only a handful use SHA-384 and SHA-512. Most of the latter are issued by DigiCert.

The rise of SHA-2

Migration to SHA-2 slowly gathered pace when the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) banned the use of SHA-1 for new signature generation after the end of December 2013, but the rate of growth increased in the wake of the 2014 HeartBleed bug. This bug resulted in around half a million certificates being potentially compromised, requiring urgent reissuance and revocation. By this time, many certificate authorities were already using SHA-256 for new certificates, which in turn caused a significant boost in the number of SHA-2 certificates in use on the web.

SHA-1 vs SHA-2 (source: Netcraft SSL Survey October 2015)

SHA-1 vs SHA-2 (source: Netcraft SSL Survey October 2015)

SHA-2 eventually overtook SHA-1 in May 2015, but there are still nearly a million certificates currently using SHA-1.

The use of SHA-1 in new certificates is expected to halt by the close of this year, as from 2016, the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements will forbid the issuance of any new subscriber certificates or subordinate certificates that use the SHA-1 algorithm.

However, with less than three months to go, Symantec proposed a motion (endorsed by Entrust, Microsoft and Trend Micro) to allow the issuance of SHA-1 signed certificates throughout 2016. The proposed changes to the Baseline Requirements would have catered for "a very small number of very large enterprise customers" who are unable to migrate to SHA-2 before the end of this year. But with the new cost projections making the risk of a real-world attack higher than previously believed, Symantec and the endorsers subsequently withdrew the ballot on 12 October.

Even if this ballot were accepted, many certificate authorities have already decided to avoid using SHA-1 because of the way some browsers will treat these certificates. For example, if an existing SHA-1 certificate is due to expire during 2016, Google Chrome currently flags this up as a weak security configuration and warns the user that their connection may not be private. Certificates that are valid until 2017 or later are treated as affirmatively insecure, with the "https" protocol crossed out.

Weak and insecure certificates

Despite being regarded as weak or insecure by one of the most commonly used browsers, over 120,000 of the SHA-1 certificates currently in use on the web were issued during 2015, and 3,900 of these have expiry dates beyond the start of 2017. The owners of these certificates will undoubtedly need to replace them months — or in some cases, years — before they are due to expire.

For example, Deloitte is still using a SHA-1 signed certificate that was issued in February 2015 and valid until 2020. Google Chrome already regards this certificate as insecure:


This SHA-1 certificate was issued by A-Trust Gesellschaft für Sicherheitssysteme im elektronischen Datenverkehr GmbH, who operate the A-Trust-nQual-03 root certificate that is trusted by all mainstream browsers.

In February 2014, when Netcraft first published a look at SHA-2 migration, more than 256,000 SHA-1 signed certificates would have been valid beyond the start of 2017. Despite the browser vendors' deprecation plans, this total is roughly the same today.

Buggy browsers treating some SHA-2 certificates as insecure

Some certificate authorities were hit by an unexpected pitfall after migrating to SHA-2, after failing to use new names for their SHA-2 signed intermediate certificates. SSLMate, an SSL certificate vendor, published two examples of how Google Chrome could erroneously suggest that a site was affirmatively insecure for serving a SHA-1 certificate, even when the full certificate chain actually used the SHA-2 hashing algorithm. This undesirable behaviour was caused by caching in the cryptographic libraries used by Chrome (CryptoAPI on Windows, and NSS on Linux).

When a CA migrates to SHA-2, it can either reuse an existing intermediate certificate by re-signing the existing public key with SHA-2, or it can generate a new one with a new public key and subject name. If the existing certificate is reused, some Windows browsers will end up ignoring the chain provided by the server and instead use the old SHA-1 intermediate certificate if it has been cached previously. This will cause Chrome to believe that the connection to the site is affirmatively insecure.

SSLMate observed that StartCom was still issuing SHA-2 certificates that were signed by a SHA-1 intermediate, despite CA/Browser Forum Ballot 118 stating that CAs should not do this. Netcraft's SSL Survey also shows the same mistakes being made by other certificate authorities, including WoSign, Entrust and Unizeto amongst others. All of these certificates may be regarded as insecure by the Chrome browser.

The second example involved a bug in older versions of NSS on Linux, which could cause Chrome to use a cross-signed root even if a shorter and newer chain exists. If the cached cross-signed certificate uses SHA-1, Chrome will consider the chain to be weak, even though the server may have sent a chain that used SHA-2 throughout.

October 2015 Web Server Survey

In the October 2015 survey we received responses from 878,269,546 sites and 5,491,917 web-facing computers. This reflects a drop of 14.5 million sites since last month, while the number of computers rose by 53,800.

nginx grew in all metrics this month – websites, active sites, web-facing computers, and its share of the top million sites. With a gain of 866,000 active sites, nginx has increased its market share in this metric beyond 15% for the first time.

nginx also made an impressive gain of 21,480 web-facing computers, outpacing Apache's increase of 12,629 and Microsoft's 4,606. nginx is now used by 727,000 web-facing computers around the world, but it still has a fair way to go before it encroaches on the dominance of Microsoft and Apache. More than twice as many computers are running Microsoft server software, while Apache is even further ahead with its 2.5 million computers giving it a 46% share of the market.

Increasing native support for HTTP/2

The latest mainline version of nginx (1.9.5) has ditched support for SPDY, replacing it with HTTP/2 via an experimental ngx_http_v2_module. The latest major release in the 2.4 stable branch of Apache also now supports HTTP/2 natively. Apache 2.4.17 was released on 13 October 2015, and includes a donated HTTP/2 implementation in the mod_http2 core module, which has similar configuration options to the existing mod_ssl module. HTTP/2 support was previously available since Apache 2.4.12 via the mod_h2 module, although this required the server source code to be patched.

HTTP/2 is the standardised successor of SPDY, on which it was based. The primary motivation for using either of these protocols is performance – compared with HTTP 1.1, both of the newer protocols offer reduced latency through methods like header compression, prioritisation, and allowing webpage elements to be requested in parallel over a single TCP connection.

However, widespread use of HTTP 1.1 is likely to continue for several more years at least, as most browser vendors only support HTTP/2 over encrypted TLS connections. This means the significantly greater number of non-HTTPS sites currently in existence will carry on using HTTP 1.1, even though the HTTP/2 standard is also defined for HTTP URLs.

Despite the potential performance benefits, less than 5% of all SSL certificates in Netcraft's October SSL Survey were found on web servers that supported SPDY or HTTP/2. However, 29% of SSL sites within the thousand most popular sites currently support SPDY or HTTP/2, while 8% of those within the top million sites do. The busiest sites have the most to gain by optimising their connections, so this distribution is not too surprising.

HTTP/2 is also supported by the latest version of Microsoft Internet Information Services, although with the production version of Windows Server 2016 yet to be released, it is not too surprising that IIS 10.0 was found being used by only 2,200 sites in this month's survey. Several of these sites are hosted by Microsoft, and although publicly accessible, the hostnames suggest they are test servers that mirror the functionality of existing Microsoft sites still running IIS 7.0 and IIS 7.5.

While Windows Server 2016 is likely to become the primary platform for IIS 10.0 on the internet, IIS 10.0 is also included in Windows 10, which is already available and has been offered as a free upgrade to many Windows users. Technical Preview versions of Windows Server 2016 are also currently available for evaluation. Some earlier versions of Windows, including Windows 7 Service Pack 1, can also run IIS 10.0 Express. This is a self-contained version that has all of the core capabilities of IIS 10.0, as well as some additional features to make it easier to develop and test websites.

Total number of websites

Web server market share

DeveloperSeptember 2015PercentOctober 2015PercentChange
Continue reading

Fraudsters use OV certificate for phishing

In June 2015, Trustwave issued an organisation-validated certificate for, and that was used on a PayPal phishing site. The certificate was issued to an individual in India, Asha Shaikh, who may be the fraudster behind the phishing site, or perhaps one of the fraudster's victims. The phishing attack is now offline, but the certificate has yet to be revoked by Trustwave at the time of writing.

Rendered contents of phishing site found on The error message visible at the top of the page is a giveaway: the geo-location of the visitor's IP address failed, and it reveals the location of the files used to power the phishing site.

Certificate authorities typically sell certificates in three broad categories of assurance: domain-validated certificates simply validate control over a domain name; organisation-validated certificates include the identity of the organisation; and Extended Validation certificates increase the level of identity checking done to meet a recognised industry standard.

The difference between DV, OV, and EV certificates is sometimes subtle — many sources of consumer advice do not make the distinction between certificates that provide further identity information and those that only validate domain name ownership. For example, Google Chrome's help page states: "You can tell if a site is real if it has a valid TLS/SSL certificate".

Most certificates with deceptive domain names are domain-validated, though some appear to be organisation-validated. Many of the SSL certificates associated with CloudFlare's "Universal SSL" programme are ostensibly organisation-validated; however, the organisation being validated in this case is CloudFlare itself and not each individual customer. certificate

An organisation-validated certificate for shown in the Windows certificate viewer.

Rather than be processed automatically, as is possible with domain-validated certificates, most higher-assurance certificate requests will be reviewed by a human prior to issuance. This additional level of validation makes it all the more surprising that a request for a certificate containing "paypal" wasn't considered a high risk request, and consequently rejected after being subjected to increased scrutiny.

Trustwave offers a Relying Party warranty with its certificates, covering fraudulent credit card charges made by a Trustwave certificate holder. However, the warranty does not cover other types of fraud, meaning phishing for credentials or fraudulent payments using other payment methods are not covered. As a result, victims of this phishing attack will not be able to claim on this warranty, despite having their PayPal credentials stolen by a fraudster using a Trustwave certificate.