4 ms·
Exposing TLS 1.0 leaves your connections vulnerable to BEAST. Requiring TLS 1.2 deprecates clients older than what, Android 4.4.2 and Safari 9? Maybe exceptiona
by jeroenhd 1y ago
Exposing TLS 1.0 leaves your connections vulnerable to BEAST. Requiring TLS 1.2 deprecates clients older than what, Android 4.4.2 and Safari 9? Maybe exceptional cases like IoT crapware and fifteen year old smart phones you might still need 1.1? I don't see why you'd want to take on the additional work and risk otherwise. In practice TLS 1.2 has been available for long enough that it should be the bare minimum at this point.
If I were to implement a TLS server today, I'd start at 1.2, and not bother with anything older. All of the edge cases, ciphers, protocols, config files, and regression tests are wasted time and effort.
- citrin_ru 1y agoBEAST is AFIR mitigated by RC4. It is vulnerable too but an attack on RC4 requires significant traffic never sent by many clients. Everything is a tradeoff and denying service to old clients sometimes worse than to introduce a small risk of TLS not being able to stop MitM.
- eqvinox 1y ago> Exposing TLS 1.0 leaves your connections vulnerable to BEAST. So? > Requiring TLS 1.2 deprecates clients older than what, Android 4.4.2 and Safari 9? Maybe exceptional cases like IoT crapware and fifteen year old smart phones you might still need 1.1? You're underestimating the amount of "IoT crapware" out there. And industrial control systems. And other early internet-ified infrastructure. Even bringing up Android and Safari hints that you're not thinking in the same direction I am. I'm concerned about RTEMS, FreeRTOS, Zephyr, and oooooold versions of mbedTLS or wolfSSL. These systems were built using "stable" versions. What do you think was stable 10-15 years ago? That's 20 year old software. I'm happy if it's TLS and not SSL, my dear friend.