3 ms·
I guess heartbleed gave everybody the wrong image, but most TLS vulnerabilities were vulnerabilities in the spec. The fixes to RC4, BEAST, SWEET32, POODLE, LOGJ
by unscaled 9y ago
I guess heartbleed gave everybody the wrong image, but most TLS vulnerabilities were vulnerabilities in the spec. The fixes to RC4, BEAST, SWEET32, POODLE, LOGJAM, CRIME, BREACH, BRICK, BORKED, BUSTED and whatever else you could think of - all involved changing the spec. Sometimes by adding mitigations, but mostly by banning TLS features.
TLS is a legacy protocol. Nobody likes it very much, but it's such an established standard that you don't have much choice than trying to fix it. The same might happen to JWT, but in both cases we'll be fixing the specs, not just the implementations.
- exabrial 9y agoTLS1.2 seems to be pretty secure... I think upcoming TLS1.3 will be very secure, and it's supposed to decrease latency.
- staticassertion 9y agoYou could look at SMACK TLS as a few dozen examples of implementation specific features due solely to the complexity of representing TLS state machines. These aren't protocol weaknesses, they're weaknesses in the implementation due to complexities in the protocol.