3 ms·
By normal version negotiation if you mean rfc7507/TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV then even that wont work for legacy systems last updated before April 2015 (publish date of
by wav-part 9y ago
By normal version negotiation if you mean rfc7507/TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV then even that wont work for legacy systems last updated before April 2015 (publish date of the rfc).
But nonetheless spec authors picked compatibility over security. I would not. Let the legacy insecure tls servers be blocked by the browsers, I say.
I get your position now. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
- MaulingMonkey 9y ago> But nonetheless spec authors picked compatibility over security. I would not. Most of the compatibility compromises don't seem to sacrifice security - except perhaps for increased attack surface, and a more complicated spec (but I'm not sure that leads to a more complicated implementation, so much as it's more thoroughly covering any downgrade dance?) If there are more security sacrifices to achieve compatibility, I agree with you - that's bad.