Yes, there's a tremendous advantage to utilizing HTTPS over HTTP.

1. HTTP is not encrypted through PKI, and as such, all information is passed via plain text, readable by a packet sniffer and every piece of equipment those packets pass through once they exit the modem.
2. With HTTP, there is no way for one to know whether the owner of the site is who they say they are, and as such, no way for one to know if they're being subjected to a MITM attack.
   • This is why it's recommended to always utilize HTTPS if a site offers it, since this is the only way a user can trust the content they're being served has not been tampered with.

With HTTPS, all information sent and received is encrypted via PKI, at minimum with a 1024bit/equivalent encryption key and SHA256 hash, however many sites have switched to 2048bit/equivalent, and any site processing logins is more likely than not using a 2048bit/equivalent encryption key.

• For example, when utilizing HTTP, all equipment those packets pass through can read exactly what information is being sent and received (this includes passwords, account & CC numbers, etc.); however, if utilizing HTTPS, all that could be read would be the header info.

Your question also comes up a lot with router WebUIs on LANs, and even though that traffic never leaves the local network, it should still be accessed via HTTPS only, else all passwords, including root's, will be sent as plain text.

• It doesn't matter if a person is the only one on/accessing their local network... if passwords/sensitive information must be sent/received, it should always be accessed by HTTPS only, especially when it only takes a few minutes to generate a self-signed CA or CA/ICA, and use the CA or ICA to sign a CSR for the server.

Yes, there's a tremendous advantage to utilizing HTTPS over HTTP.

1. HTTP is not encrypted through PKI, and as such, all information is passed via plain text, readable by a packet sniffer and every piece of equipment those packets pass through once they exit the modem.
2. With HTTP, there is no way for one to know whether the owner of the site is who they say they are, and as such, no way for one to know if they're being subjected to a MITM attack.
   • This is why it's recommended to always utilize HTTPS if a site offers it, since this is the only way a user can trust the content they're being served has not been tampered with.

With HTTPS, all information sent and received is encrypted via PKI, at minimum with a 1024bit/equivalent encryption key and SHA256 hash, however many sites have switched to 2048bit/equivalent, and any site processing logins is more likely than not using a 2048bit/equivalent encryption key.

• For example, when utilizing HTTP, all equipment those packets pass through can read exactly what information is being sent and received (this includes passwords, account & CC numbers, etc.); however, if utilizing HTTPS, all that could be read would be the header info.

Your question also comes up a lot with router WebUIs on LANs, and even though that traffic never leaves the local network, it should still be accessed via HTTPS only, else all passwords, including root's, will be sent as plain text.

• It doesn't matter if a person is the only one on/accessing their local network... if passwords/sensitive information must be sent/received, it should always be accessed by HTTPS only, especially when it only takes a few minutes to generate a self-signed CA or CA/ICA, and use the CA or ICA to sign a CSR for the server.