3 ms·

Chrome [1], Edge, and IE [2] are also in various stages along between the continuum of not marking SHA-1 secure, warning about SHA-1, or blocking it altogether.

by niftich 10y ago

Chrome [1], Edge, and IE [2] are also in various stages along between the continuum of not marking SHA-1 secure, warning about SHA-1, or blocking it altogether. [1] https://security.googleblog.com/2015/12/an-update-on-sha-1-certificates-in.html https://security.googleblog.com/2015/12/an-update-on-sha-1-c... [2] https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/04/29/sha1-deprecation-roadmap/ https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/04/29/sha1-deprecat... EDIT: My frustration is that it's a bit difficult to grok who's warning against what when, and who's blocking what when, and who's giving unskippable errors to what when but I'll try to collect and distill this down because right now I have to look it up every time on blog posts that haven't been updated in years (-cough- Google)

niftich 10y ago
My progress on summarizing this can be found at https://gist.github.com/anonymous/63e5ecb1de2511985255a98bce7ce2fe https://gist.github.com/anonymous/63e5ecb1de2511985255a98bce...
toast0 10y ago
The short version is, if you care about modern browsers, you should be using SHA-256 already. If you care about ancient clients, you should be using SHA-1 still. If you care about both, you need to serve both[1], but your SHA-1 cert most likely expires at the end of this year anyway, unless you've gone through the effort for extraordinary issuance. [1] you'll most likely need to write code for this, I don't think it's widely supported. If you send SHA-1 to TLS1.0 and SSLv3, that's probably easier than triggering off the signature algorithms extension.
- tinalumfoil 10y ago
  > If you care about ancient clients, you should be using SHA-1 still I want to point out here that the oldest OS the newest Firefox supports is Windows XP SP2 [0], released 8 years ago, and a free upgrade from the original XP release 14 years ago. Unless you need support for last millennium's hardware you have no excuse for not supporting SHA-256. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#System_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#System_requirements
  - toast0 10y ago
    Note that I contrasted modern browsers and ancient clients. Client libraries in shipped devices tend to be several years behind state of the art when they were shipped, and live in the field without updates. As an example Symbian didn't ship SHA-256 support in their 9.3 release from 2006, but Firefox shipped support in their 1.0 release from 2004. Whenever TLS 1.0 starts getting pulled from servers, it's going to be similarly painful. Nokia S40/Asha (last device released in 2014), only supports TLS 1.0, even though TLS 1.2 was 6 years old at that point. Nobody meaningfully supports TLS 1.1, but not TLS 1.2, so let's not hold lack of TLS 1.1 support against them. (Not to pick on Nokia, they just happen to be an easily identifiable client platform that I'm familiar with)

by niftich 10y ago

niftich 10y ago

My progress on summarizing this can be found at https://gist.github.com/anonymous/63e5ecb1de2511985255a98bce7ce2fe https://gist.github.com/anonymous/63e5ecb1de2511985255a98bce...

toast0 10y ago

The short version is, if you care about modern browsers, you should be using SHA-256 already. If you care about ancient clients, you should be using SHA-1 still. If you care about both, you need to serve both[1], but your SHA-1 cert most likely expires at the end of this year anyway, unless you've gone through the effort for extraordinary issuance. [1] you'll most likely need to write code for this, I don't think it's widely supported. If you send SHA-1 to TLS1.0 and SSLv3, that's probably easier than triggering off the signature algorithms extension.

tinalumfoil 10y ago
> If you care about ancient clients, you should be using SHA-1 still I want to point out here that the oldest OS the newest Firefox supports is Windows XP SP2 [0], released 8 years ago, and a free upgrade from the original XP release 14 years ago. Unless you need support for last millennium's hardware you have no excuse for not supporting SHA-256. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#System_requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#System_requirements
- toast0 10y ago
  Note that I contrasted modern browsers and ancient clients. Client libraries in shipped devices tend to be several years behind state of the art when they were shipped, and live in the field without updates. As an example Symbian didn't ship SHA-256 support in their 9.3 release from 2006, but Firefox shipped support in their 1.0 release from 2004. Whenever TLS 1.0 starts getting pulled from servers, it's going to be similarly painful. Nokia S40/Asha (last device released in 2014), only supports TLS 1.0, even though TLS 1.2 was 6 years old at that point. Nobody meaningfully supports TLS 1.1, but not TLS 1.2, so let's not hold lack of TLS 1.1 support against them. (Not to pick on Nokia, they just happen to be an easily identifiable client platform that I'm familiar with)