4 ms·

Add-On topic of what I think is the most important component of a web browser: A timeline of JavaScript Just-In-Time (JIT) engines. https://egbert.net/blog/tag

Add-On topic of what I think is the most important component of a web browser: A timeline of JavaScript Just-In-Time (JIT) engines. https://egbert.net/blog/tags/jit.html https://egbert.net/blog/tags/jit.html sorry, last time I checked on March 2022, Google Chrome cannot negotiate for my ChaCha-only TLS website; instead try using a Safari, Brave, Firefox, Edge, Aloha, OnionBrowser, Orion, Links, or Lynx web broswer, to name a few). Meanwhile it is an ongoing crazy ride just mapping the evolution of WASM (in my next planned blog).

jwilk 4y ago
It's still broken in Google Chrome 109 (the latest stable version) on Linux: > egbert.net uses an unsupported protocol. > ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH
- egberts1 4y ago
  which is what I expected given that Google Chrome chose to ignore the server's "my options only or nothing".
shadowgovt 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20230113174325/Https://egbert.net/blog/tags/jit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230113174325/Https://egbert.ne...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
londons_explore 4y ago
Perhaps send them a pull request to fix it, and see what they say? I can't really imagine why they wouldn't want to support it... I wonder if it was an oversight rather than a policy decision?
- egberts1 4y ago
  I merely configured the website server TLS protocol to my exacting specs (in cryptographic and network security theatre) and Chrome failed because its client "demands" the non-ChaCha variants despite my TLS server INSISTING "my way or the highway". Beside, I am quite partial toward Firefox browser so there is little benefit for me to file a report to help Firefox's competitors.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    Looking again, your server is rejecting their HELO message. You seem to be using a modern cipher yet requiring a legacy (http/1.1) protocol, which I suspect is the issue. Adding an advertisement for TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 to every TLS 1.3 handshake worldwide would add a lot of gigabytes of global bandwidth, for support of an awfully unusual configuration. Those 4 bytes in every http request globally probably isn't worth it just for you. Take a look at this trace [1]. I think it's pretty clear the client is offering a bunch of things, including TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256, and your server just replies 'nah, goodbye'. Perhaps your server doesn't like the ESNI extension? [1]: https://pastebin.com/ffP4cPJi https://pastebin.com/ffP4cPJi
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - superkuh 4y ago
      Yes, corporation persons desperately want people to move to http/2 and http/3 for for-profit reasons. They're terrible protocols for human persons though. Phasing out http/1.1 support in chrome/etc means phasing out the ability to host a website that can be visited by someone you don't know without the continued permission from a third party TLS CA.
      - 4y ago
password4321 4y ago
This actually sounds like a great way to hide from most of Google's influence; thanks! edit: My main interest is whether or not this blocks Googlebot.
- egberts1 4y ago
  An accidental discovery on my part that came from strengthening my website. It was never about maximizing my readership, just the ones that know what they are doing.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  It's easy enough to block Googlebot... It obeys robots.txt and has a distinctive user agent...
kccqzy 4y ago
I did a Wireshark capture. It's your server that sends back a TLS alert for handshake failure. Now, Chrome certainly supports ChaCha20 and Poly1305, but it could be that your server is rejecting some other extensions in Chrome's Client Hello.
mattlondon 4y ago
Doesn't work on edge. ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH
- egberts1 4y ago
  That’s a new development. Only TLSv1.3 is server-supported, am surprised that Edge did a downgrade.
cvalka 4y ago
Your website is broken, not Chrome.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  is it a chromium variant?
- egberts1 4y ago
  No, my website is not broken, just made not accessible to obsolete browsers. Your browser is stuck on TLS v1.2, try something that supports TLS v1.3
thro1 4y ago
JS for browsing is not needed at all and often it's a mistake. It may be ocassionally useful, but it's the least important thing. (The fact that someone can process data and express self in many ways, even with JS - if he can't do it proper by other means - makes that mistake: that the others shall be forced to access data only the limited way some JS allow - but he could mind that the procesing in between may be not needed at all or disturbing and that there are many other ways to access data which dont't block each other or force as expecting JS does.)

jwilk 4y ago

It's still broken in Google Chrome 109 (the latest stable version) on Linux: > egbert.net uses an unsupported protocol. > ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH

egberts1 4y ago
which is what I expected given that Google Chrome chose to ignore the server's "my options only or nothing".

shadowgovt 4y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20230113174325/Https://egbert.net/blog/tags/jit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230113174325/Https://egbert.ne...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

londons_explore 4y ago

Perhaps send them a pull request to fix it, and see what they say? I can't really imagine why they wouldn't want to support it... I wonder if it was an oversight rather than a policy decision?

egberts1 4y ago
I merely configured the website server TLS protocol to my exacting specs (in cryptographic and network security theatre) and Chrome failed because its client "demands" the non-ChaCha variants despite my TLS server INSISTING "my way or the highway". Beside, I am quite partial toward Firefox browser so there is little benefit for me to file a report to help Firefox's competitors.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Looking again, your server is rejecting their HELO message. You seem to be using a modern cipher yet requiring a legacy (http/1.1) protocol, which I suspect is the issue. Adding an advertisement for TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 to every TLS 1.3 handshake worldwide would add a lot of gigabytes of global bandwidth, for support of an awfully unusual configuration. Those 4 bytes in every http request globally probably isn't worth it just for you. Take a look at this trace [1]. I think it's pretty clear the client is offering a bunch of things, including TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256, and your server just replies 'nah, goodbye'. Perhaps your server doesn't like the ESNI extension? [1]: https://pastebin.com/ffP4cPJi https://pastebin.com/ffP4cPJi
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - superkuh 4y ago
    Yes, corporation persons desperately want people to move to http/2 and http/3 for for-profit reasons. They're terrible protocols for human persons though. Phasing out http/1.1 support in chrome/etc means phasing out the ability to host a website that can be visited by someone you don't know without the continued permission from a third party TLS CA.
    - 4y ago

password4321 4y ago

This actually sounds like a great way to hide from most of Google's influence; thanks! edit: My main interest is whether or not this blocks Googlebot.

egberts1 4y ago
An accidental discovery on my part that came from strengthening my website. It was never about maximizing my readership, just the ones that know what they are doing.
londons_explore 4y ago
It's easy enough to block Googlebot... It obeys robots.txt and has a distinctive user agent...

kccqzy 4y ago

I did a Wireshark capture. It's your server that sends back a TLS alert for handshake failure. Now, Chrome certainly supports ChaCha20 and Poly1305, but it could be that your server is rejecting some other extensions in Chrome's Client Hello.

mattlondon 4y ago

Doesn't work on edge. ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH

egberts1 4y ago
That’s a new development. Only TLSv1.3 is server-supported, am surprised that Edge did a downgrade.

cvalka 4y ago

Your website is broken, not Chrome.

no_wizard 4y ago
is it a chromium variant?
egberts1 4y ago
No, my website is not broken, just made not accessible to obsolete browsers. Your browser is stuck on TLS v1.2, try something that supports TLS v1.3

thro1 4y ago

JS for browsing is not needed at all and often it's a mistake. It may be ocassionally useful, but it's the least important thing. (The fact that someone can process data and express self in many ways, even with JS - if he can't do it proper by other means - makes that mistake: that the others shall be forced to access data only the limited way some JS allow - but he could mind that the procesing in between may be not needed at all or disturbing and that there are many other ways to access data which dont't block each other or force as expecting JS does.)