3 ms·

> so backwards compatibility is neccessary. True, but from a technical perspective "necessity" might be a bit of a strong term. For example as far as I know th

> so backwards compatibility is neccessary. True, but from a technical perspective "necessity" might be a bit of a strong term. For example as far as I know there aren't any Windows versions left that don't have support for TLS 1.2 but are still supported (i.e. not EOL). iirc Windows Server 2012 has support, but it's not enabled by default. So that's the closest to "unsupported" you get with Windows. I think this is mostly because people are some what hesitant of enabling TLS 1.3. Because merely enabling TLS 1.3 along side TLS 1.2 can trigger latent bugs in clients.

chrisandchris 2mo ago
Or, just imagine that there are places in this world that still run old and outdated versions of something and upgrading is not an option because of "there's no money". We should not exclude all these places from all the internet just because of reasons.
bawolff 2mo ago
> I think this is mostly because people are some what hesitant of enabling TLS 1.3. Because merely enabling TLS 1.3 along side TLS 1.2 can trigger latent bugs in clients. I'm very doubtful. On the client side, people almost always go with defaults. On the server side, we are at ~75% market share for TLS1.3 https://www.ssllabs.com/ssl-pulse/ https://www.ssllabs.com/ssl-pulse/ We are way past the point where people are afraid to enable tls1.3 because they think its buggy.