4 ms·

Yes, technically it's TLS, not SSL. TLS, however, is an "evolution" of SSL and many, many people still use this nomenclature. It doesn't "reek of amateur hour

Yes, technically it's TLS, not SSL. TLS, however, is an "evolution" of SSL and many, many people still use this nomenclature. It doesn't "reek of amateur hour and shallow knowledge", it's just a holdover from the past. We all know and understand what others are referring to when they say "SSL". It's like when I tell the girlfriend I'm going to go on a "bike ride". She understands that I mean I'm going for a ride on my Harley, a motorcycle, and not an actual bicycle. Or last weekend, when a friend asked me, "Hey, could you move your car so <other person> can get out?". While I could have stood there arguing with him or correcting him (since my car was actually at home, in my driveway), I instead went out and moved my truck so that the other guest could leave. This excessive, unwarranted pedantry is annoying as hell. You may be "technically correct" but you make everyone around you dislike you.

dpark 9y ago
Your examples are not really comparable, mostly because of context. If someone at a party mentions SSL casually and you feel the need to explain that SSL is dead and they are really talking about TLS, you're just annoying. If someone presents themselves as an expert and says that SSL is "fundamentally broken", it's pretty reasonable to question their expertise. Especially when they actually aren't even talking about TLS but about CAs and PKI. To make an absolute statement about the fundamental soundness of PKI and then use completely the wrong term? Come on. Can you imagine a real expert doing this and not at least recognize their own mistake? Don't talk about "fundamental flaws" when you don't know the difference between SSL and TLS and PKI. This is very much like someone trying to criticize the design of TCP/IP and not knowing the difference between an IP address and a MAC address.
Tijdreiziger 9y ago
> It's like when I tell the girlfriend I'm going to go on a "bike ride". She understands that I mean I'm going for a ride on my Harley, a motorcycle, and not an actual bicycle. Try saying this in the Netherlands (or, presumably, Denmark). Everyone would be surprised when you bring out your motorcycle instead of your bike (i.e., bicycle).

dpark 9y ago

Your examples are not really comparable, mostly because of context. If someone at a party mentions SSL casually and you feel the need to explain that SSL is dead and they are really talking about TLS, you're just annoying. If someone presents themselves as an expert and says that SSL is "fundamentally broken", it's pretty reasonable to question their expertise. Especially when they actually aren't even talking about TLS but about CAs and PKI. To make an absolute statement about the fundamental soundness of PKI and then use completely the wrong term? Come on. Can you imagine a real expert doing this and not at least recognize their own mistake? Don't talk about "fundamental flaws" when you don't know the difference between SSL and TLS and PKI. This is very much like someone trying to criticize the design of TCP/IP and not knowing the difference between an IP address and a MAC address.

Tijdreiziger 9y ago

> It's like when I tell the girlfriend I'm going to go on a "bike ride". She understands that I mean I'm going for a ride on my Harley, a motorcycle, and not an actual bicycle. Try saying this in the Netherlands (or, presumably, Denmark). Everyone would be surprised when you bring out your motorcycle instead of your bike (i.e., bicycle).