5 ms·
Disabling SSLv3 and RC4
- PaulBurke 11y agoIf you want to get rid of POODLE vulnerability due to SSLv3, Here's how you can solve it in Google Chrome, Firefox & IE - http://bit.ly/disable-SSLv3 http://bit.ly/disable-SSLv3
- ademarre 11y agoThis is a good move. As an aside, I thought this was a funny appeal to authority: > SSLv3 has been obsolete for over 16 years and is so full of known problems that the IETF has decided that it must no longer be used. <link to RFC 7568[0]> This blog post was written by Adam Langley, who is also one of the authors of RFC 7568. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7568 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7568
- DiabloD3 11y agoWe still need the other side of this: Chrome, Firefox, MSIE, and Safari need to start refusing to negotiate SSLv3 and RC4.
- evmar 11y agoFrom the post: "we expect to disable both SSLv3 and RC4 support at Google’s frontend servers and, over time, across our products in general, including Chrome, Android, [...]"
- agl 11y agoChrome has already disabled SSLv3 (as have other browsers). We have also announced the planned removal of RC4 early next year: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/security-dev/kVfCywocUO8/vgi_rQuhKgAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/securit.... (As have Mozilla and Microsoft.)
- kijin 11y agoThe only mainstream browser that doesn't support TLSv1 by default is IE6, and it's been dead for quite some time. (At one of my API endpoints, I'm seeing IE6 market share in the range of 0.013%. And this is in South Korea where IE market share is abnormally high to begin with, so I'm sure the numbers are even lower in most other parts of the world.) So this change has more to do with API clients than browsers. Unfortunately, a lot of API clients are still written for, and run on, grossly outdated platforms. For example, Java 1.4 is as old as IE6, but one still sees it in the wild from time to time.
- insertnickname 11y agoMaybe once major browsers all disable RC4, my bank will finally stop using it. Or maybe they'll just sit on their hands and tell people to use IE6. I don't know. Anything is possible when they're using such a ridiculous TLS config in 2015 (only TLS 1.0, only 3DES and RC4).
- tracker1 11y agoI would expect banks to allow more than a case-insensitive password of no longer than 8 letters and numbers (only) too. It's kind of a sad state...
- stephengillie 11y agoIsn't 3DES still "considered secure"? I know DES has been broken, but major Cloud hosts still recommend 3DES in their VPNs.
- delan 11y agoIt's only secure when used with TLS 1.1+ where it has an effective security of 112 bits. Otherwise it is susceptible to the BEAST attack, like any other CBC cipher suite, unless the client has been updated to mitigate the attack.
- wolf550e 11y agoIt is secure, but it is much slower than AES and requires frequent rekeying because of small block size.
- cakes 11y agoActually just had this conversation with someone about setting up a new https setup for hosting a tool and the amount of online "guides" that still reference 3DES (when other options may be more suitable) is impressively high. Yes 3DES is still "secure" in situations but other alternatives are preferred when we can take them.
- txrit 11y agoThey might instruct all their customers to use IE6 for "security".
- cm2187 11y agoWhat I don't understand is how google can be comfortable to use TLS on their SMTP service given that it is vulnerable to a STARTTLS downgrade MITM attack. It's like switching from old encryption to optional encryption.
- dadrian 11y agoWhat do you suggest they use instead? No encryption?
- cm2187 11y agoWell, for all of its problems, SSL3 is less trivial to MITM.
- scintill76 11y agoDowngradeable encryption is arguably better than none at all. It raises an attacker's prerequisites from just passive snooping to active tampering. Yeah, it's an illusion of security to an extent, it's imperfect, but between waiting a decade or two for SMTPS delivery to be widespread, and using STARTTLS today, I'll take STARTTLS. T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶i̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶p̶o̶r̶t̶ ̶2̶5̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶S̶T̶A̶R̶T̶T̶L̶S̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶e̶s̶t̶i̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶ ̶D̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶a̶l̶?̶ (Edit: may have spoken too soon. smtp.gmail.com responds "530 5.7.0 Must issue a STARTTLS command first." to MAIL FROM, which is I think to force a Gmail user to auth over STARTTLS before sending mail for relaying. The gmail.com MX servers don't appear to force STARTTLS.) Gmail could basically strongarm everyone into using STARTTLS and valid certs, for both sending and receiving, at which point we can release a new RFC requiring immediate STARTTLS or the connection will be closed, and everyone will already be capable of obeying it to be able to interop with Gmail.
- cm2187 11y agoGiven gmail's volume that would pretty much make it a requirement for all other mail services. A mandatory STARSTTLS would make me happy!
- AhtiK 11y agoRequiring Server Name Indication (SNI) extension is quite significant as if I understand correctly then this blocks Windows XP to access any of the Google services with any version of Internet Explorer.
- yuhong 11y agoThey are not dropping support immediately. They are providing advice so that future TLS clients (particularly embedded) will not have problems when support for things like TLS 1.0 is dropped likely years in the future.
- wereHamster 11y agoPeople who are still using Windows XP are irresponsible. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/end-of-xp-support https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/end-of-xp...
- michaelt 11y agoI'm not sure it's all that significant - it's been inevitable for years, and Chrome and Firefox will still work. Running a 14-year-old browser on a 14-year-old OS and complaining about support being dropped is like running a computer with 256MB of RAM and complaining you can't play the latest games :)
- weavie 11y agoIf you run an SSL server it is well worth running it through https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/index.html https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/index.html to spot any config errors. It was this that spotted I had SSLv3 enabled. I would have been completely clueless otherwise.
- devNoise 11y agoOnce you've checked your server, then you can head over to https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/ https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generat... and get an idea of how to change your server's SSL configuration.
- ashmud 11y agoAnything like this for IIS that shows client compatibility? The only configuration tool I know of is https://www.nartac.com/Products/IISCrypto/ https://www.nartac.com/Products/IISCrypto/.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]