4 ms·
Note that there's an SSLv3 after SSLv2 -- both are broken, but SSLv2 is just a much bigger liability than before. SSLv3 is also broken. You shouldn't have had
by mcpherrinm 11y ago
Note that there's an SSLv3 after SSLv2 -- both are broken, but SSLv2 is just a much bigger liability than before. SSLv3 is also broken.
You shouldn't have had SSLv2 enabled for many years now. If you need SSLv3 for WinXP support, this bug doesn't change anything in that regard.
- DenisM 11y agoGood point on v3. I kept v2 running because we couldn't bring ourselves to prevent connections from clients of our clients, it's not our place to tell them what to do, especially if it only harms them and no one else. This time it harms everyone, including high-privilege users, so it's a lot easier to justify.