4 ms·

This is an interesting example of how to get a perfect score on the ssl test.. but it's a terrible config for a production web server. It only works with the f

This is an interesting example of how to get a perfect score on the ssl test.. but it's a terrible config for a production web server. It only works with the following clients without an error.. since this is when these browsers added TLS 1.2 support (and this config requires tls 1.2): Android 5+ Firefox 27+ IE 11, Edge Opera 17+ Safari 7+ It might work on some versions of Chrome after v30 (when tls 1.2 was added) but before they added the obsolete crypto warning (that this config triggers). It pointlessly excludes clients since TLS 1.0, 1.1 and AES 128 are still considered secure.

danieltillett 10y ago
Exactly. Perfection means you exclude a large percentage of users who are not using a modern browser or who have older handsets. If you running a hobby site then it is fine, but if it is a business this sort of behaviour is insane.
- Panino 10y ago
  (Note: I do support AES-128-GCM, and don't recommend doing what the author of this article did.) That said: According to my webserver logs, I see <5% of traffic being TLS 1.0/1.1, so going TLS 1.2 only wouldn't (in my case) exclude many people. By recently blocking only 3 IP addresses (unfriendly bots), I calculate an expected reduction in TLS 1.1 usage of about 85%. So now I expect TLS 1.1 usage to plunge from about 1% to ... less than 1%. I encourage everyone to measure their traffic, and take some time to consider how important their TLS 1.0 and 1.1 users are. If you're a business, what percentage of sales are from TLS 1.0/1.1 clients? What's the ratio of good:bad traffic? And the same questions for 1.2. Measure!
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    It really depends on your market. I see around 20% of my traffic coming from below 1.2. Measure twice and cut once.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Many institutional and enterprise shops using Windows 7 won't use TLS 1.2, either due to poor configuration management practices or confusion with regard to how to handle the 3-ring circus that is IE.
hannob 10y ago
>It pointlessly excludes clients since TLS 1.0, 1.1 and AES >128 are still considered secure. Wrong. All AES-based ciphers in TLS 1.0/1.1 are vulnerable to the Lucky Thirteen attack. This can be avoided by careful implementation, however as far as I know the go developers don't even try to do that and say if you want something secure use gcm.
- rgbrenner 10y ago
  Wrong. 1. TLS 1.2 is also vulnerable to the lucky thirteen attack. 2. The lucky thirteen attack requires CBC-mode.. which is also what generates the obsolete crypto warning in chrome. The solution here is clearly to disable CBC-mode. http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/TLStiming.pdf http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/TLStiming.pdf
darkhorn 10y ago
I use this future so that email agregators (bots) cannot reach my web site. So far 0 spam :D

danieltillett 10y ago

Exactly. Perfection means you exclude a large percentage of users who are not using a modern browser or who have older handsets. If you running a hobby site then it is fine, but if it is a business this sort of behaviour is insane.

Panino 10y ago
(Note: I do support AES-128-GCM, and don't recommend doing what the author of this article did.) That said: According to my webserver logs, I see <5% of traffic being TLS 1.0/1.1, so going TLS 1.2 only wouldn't (in my case) exclude many people. By recently blocking only 3 IP addresses (unfriendly bots), I calculate an expected reduction in TLS 1.1 usage of about 85%. So now I expect TLS 1.1 usage to plunge from about 1% to ... less than 1%. I encourage everyone to measure their traffic, and take some time to consider how important their TLS 1.0 and 1.1 users are. If you're a business, what percentage of sales are from TLS 1.0/1.1 clients? What's the ratio of good:bad traffic? And the same questions for 1.2. Measure!
- danieltillett 10y ago
  It really depends on your market. I see around 20% of my traffic coming from below 1.2. Measure twice and cut once.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Many institutional and enterprise shops using Windows 7 won't use TLS 1.2, either due to poor configuration management practices or confusion with regard to how to handle the 3-ring circus that is IE.

hannob 10y ago

>It pointlessly excludes clients since TLS 1.0, 1.1 and AES >128 are still considered secure. Wrong. All AES-based ciphers in TLS 1.0/1.1 are vulnerable to the Lucky Thirteen attack. This can be avoided by careful implementation, however as far as I know the go developers don't even try to do that and say if you want something secure use gcm.

rgbrenner 10y ago
Wrong. 1. TLS 1.2 is also vulnerable to the lucky thirteen attack. 2. The lucky thirteen attack requires CBC-mode.. which is also what generates the obsolete crypto warning in chrome. The solution here is clearly to disable CBC-mode. http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/TLStiming.pdf http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/TLStiming.pdf

darkhorn 10y ago

I use this future so that email agregators (bots) cannot reach my web site. So far 0 spam :D