Tell me more ×
Salesforce Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Salesforce administrators, implementation experts, developers and anybody in-between. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Most of my clients who ask for a public portal or site on salesforce want two things:

  1. SSL
  2. personally branded site

They like being able to manage everything through salesforce but they dont want their public image affected by salesforce specific url strings etc.

The solution I have typically put forth is to put an ngnix/apache proxy in front of the site.

This solution also allows for the url to go from this <customer.urn>.force.com => someting.<customer.urn>

does anyone have another solution that works for them, maybe something on platform?

share|improve this question
does the proxy allow full https traffic ? We have the same issue and didn't think of this. Native to salesforce there is no solution for this as far as the documentation states. – Sdry Aug 21 '12 at 14:58
1  
@Sdry - Definitely no native Salesforce support. Here is the related idea which is "Under Consideration": success.salesforce.com/ideaView?id=087300000006nxH. – Peter Knolle Aug 21 '12 at 15:02
it does, you are basically going full https from client -> proxy -> SF – ebt Aug 21 '12 at 15:10

3 Answers

The historic difficulty with allowing SSL with custom web addresses is that the SSL negotiation takes place based on IP addresses. Thus the SSL certificate has to be bound to a specific IP address and presented when a client makes an SSL connection to that IP address. Name based hosting, which allows a site to represent itself as a custom address is a feature of HTTP(S), as the name is encoded in the HTTP request headers, but these aren't presented until the SSL connection is established. Thus SFDC would need to provide a unique IP address to for every site that used SSL and custom web addresses, something that is unlikely to scale.

Server Name Identification solves this problem by adding the hostname to the SSL handshake, but for this to work both the browser and server need to support it and a lot of older browsers don't. The problem here is that if the browser doesn't support SNI, it gets the default certificate for that IP addresses, which raises a security alert, which is probably a worse user experience than using .secure.force.com.

share|improve this answer
Interesting. Do you have any insight into how Salesforce might be planning on implementing the idea they have under consideration? success.salesforce.com/ideaView?id=087300000006nxH. I wonder if it will be similar to developers.google.com/appengine/docs/ssl? – Peter Knolle Aug 22 '12 at 10:28
I've assumed they would use SNI. Virtual IP addresses have been around for a while, but they tended to have patchy OS support (though its been a long time since I used it - back then Linux didn't have support). All guesswork I'm afraid. Probably the biggest issue for SNI right now is that Internet Explorer on XP doesn't support it, which cuts out a lot of browser. – Bob Buzzard Aug 22 '12 at 12:17
up vote 3 down vote accepted

So for SSL with salesforce sites it seems that the way to go is still a reverse proxy.

share|improve this answer

In Force.com Sites, there is a functionality to use a Custom Web Address which will let you specify your own domain. For example:

Instead of: "mycompany.force.com" You can use: "www.mycompany.com"

However, this solution doesn't allow SSL, meaning you can't do https. If you go to the https custom url, e.g. "https://www.mycompany.com/", then you'd get a certificate warning.

I know there are a few pilot customers who are working with Salesforce to trial a SSL version of the custom web address. Your clients should talk with their Salesforce reps to find out if they can do this for their sites.

share|improve this answer
1  
Are you 100% certain that there is a full SSL trial for custom domains on Sites? I had an issue related to this escalated the entire way up the chain a few months ago and never got any remote indication that this was actually on a roadmap. If it's currently in pilot it would have had to have been fully developed at that point. It's huge news if true, since this has been sorely needed functionality for years. – jkraybill Aug 22 '12 at 3:31
The folks at Activision will tell you that this got done for them, and they're using it in production today. – Shane McLaughlin Aug 22 '12 at 14:01

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.