| 1 |
On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:59:01 +0200 |
| 2 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> As far as I know this is correct. |
| 5 |
> All SSL protocol versions including v3 have known vulnerabilities. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yeah, but this is a pointless statement in the discussion. Nobody says |
| 8 |
we should deploy https via sslv3. Of course if people want https they |
| 9 |
mean "https as in 2015 https", not "https as in 199x https". |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> In addition, a number implementations of TLS 1.0 and 1.1 have been |
| 12 |
> found susceptible to the Poodle and/or FREAK attacks. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Implementation bugs that can be fixed (and are fixed). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
FREAK is only an issue if you have crazy configured servers (again, |
| 17 |
https as in 199x), POODLE TLS is only affecting some crappy proprietary |
| 18 |
load balancers (and erlang, but nobody has proposed to use an erlang |
| 19 |
https server). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
People want to deploy pgp sigs (which is - to be clear - a good idea I |
| 22 |
fully support). I personally found countless minor security issues in |
| 23 |
gpg lately. Should that stop us from using pgp sigs? of course not. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And the claims about https being a performance / cpu stress horror is |
| 27 |
also completely exaggerated. https performance is mostly a non-issue |
| 28 |
and based on urban legends rather than benchmarks. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Hanno Böck |
| 33 |
http://hboeck.de/ |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
mail/jabber: hanno@××××××.de |
| 36 |
GPG: BBB51E42 |
Archives