To me the whole idea of negotiating ciphers seems broken: a man-in-the-middle will always choose the weakest one. I guess the argument is that cipher negotiati

To me the whole idea of negotiating ciphers seems broken: a man-in-the-middle will always choose the weakest one. I guess the argument is that cipher negotiation lets you implement stronger crypto without defining a new protocol version, but what is the point of that? An attacker will just negotiate for the weaker cipher anyway (unless this negotiation is cryptographically protected too of course, but this seems so complex in comparison with the rather meaningless "goal" of cipher negotiation).