Certificate Manager vs Self-Signed Certificate

Developers should use Certificate Manager when deploying web applications that require HTTPS encryption, as it automates certificate management and reduces manual errors meets developers should learn about self-signed certificates for scenarios like local development and testing, where they need to simulate https without the cost or complexity of obtaining a ca-signed certificate. Here's our take.

Certificate Manager

Nice Pick

Developers should use Certificate Manager when deploying web applications that require HTTPS encryption, as it automates certificate management and reduces manual errors

Pros

• It is particularly valuable in cloud-native environments, microservices architectures, and DevOps pipelines where scalability and security are critical, such as for e-commerce sites, APIs, or internal services
• Related to: ssl-tls, cloud-security

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Self-Signed Certificate

Developers should learn about self-signed certificates for scenarios like local development and testing, where they need to simulate HTTPS without the cost or complexity of obtaining a CA-signed certificate

Pros

• They are essential for setting up secure internal services, such as in Docker containers or on-premises servers, and for debugging SSL/TLS issues in controlled environments
• Related to: ssl-tls, openssl

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Certificate Manager is a platform while Self-Signed Certificate is a concept. We picked Certificate Manager based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Certificate Manager wins

Based on overall popularity. Certificate Manager is more widely used, but Self-Signed Certificate excels in its own space.