On Fri, May 15, 2015, at 03:07, Ian Smith wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:32:53 +0200, Adam Major wrote: > > Hello > > > > >> But I don't think disable TLS 1.0 is ok. > > >> > > > > > > TLS 1.0 is dead and is even now banned in new installations according to > > > the PCI DSS 3.1 standards. Nobody should expect TLS 1.0 to be supported > > > by *any* HTTPS site now. > > > > Maybe is dead but is used in many old browser / software still used. > > > > In PCI DSS 3.1 merchants must remove SSL and TLS 1.0 to 30 June 2016. > > (new installations "in theory" should not be built on TLS 1.0). > > > > So we have 1 year and FreeBSD forum is not e-commerce site ;) > > People seem determined to make sure freebsd forums are one of the first > sites to ban TLS 1.0, as some sort of best-practice example. > > I admit my knowledge of TLS issues is scant. I'd like to know whether > allowing TLS 1.0 - with fallback from later levels denied, as it already > is - endangers the server, or only the client? If there's a clearly > stated and immediate danger to the forum server, I can accept that, but > I'd have thought https://www and svnweb would be more at such peril? > Will there be any notice before they're denied TLS 1.0 access also? >
The danger is decryption. Your username/password could be stolen if someone captures your traffic after successfully initiating a downgrade attack. You can't login to www.freebsd.org or svnweb. The most they can do is see what you're browsing, which isn't private anyway. > If it's just for making the sort of point that Mark is advocating, to > force people to join this 'rolling automatic update' model so beloved of > Microsoft and their captive hardware vendors, then I think doing that, > without any sort of prior notice, is rather less than I've come to > expect from the FreeBSD project over 17 years. > > But I'm a grandpa too; guess I have old-fashioned expectations :) > Microsoft has nothing to do with this. They're setting a good example. OSX is sort-of on that train too. FreeBSD has always been ahead of the curve with the ports tree being a rolling-release model. We need the Linux distros to get their heads on straight now, too. Just a reminder: I don't speak for the project in these matters. I'm just telling you what best current practices are. I have no idea who made that decision for the forums, or if it's even worth having the forums on https anyway. If it was up to me I probably wouldn't even put https on the forums even though Google will penalize it in search results. (Sure, you have a user account there... but it doesn't really do anything... you're not using the same credentials everywhere are you?) Actually, that might be the reason -- Google search results. Perhaps Google is also logging what protocols/ciphers your HTTPS has and is using that in search rankings. _______________________________________________ freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
