* Jakob Bohm: >> The purpose of the option is to make totally broken applications a >> bit less secure (when they happen to certain servers). From my
I meant “a bit less insecure”, as Bodo pointed out. >> point of view, there is only one really good reason to have this >> client-side option—so that you can test the server-side >> support. That's why I implemented it for OpenJDK as well. >> Application should *never* use it because it does not really solve >> anything. If you have fallback code, your application is still >> insecure. > No the purpose is to make them more secure by preventing their > (rarely needed) fallback code from being abused by MITM attackers, > but the extra protection only works if the server contains the > corresponding patch. Basically, if a (patched) server sees that The key word here is “patched”, a broken-server-supporting application gets only protection for well-maintained servers—after the Powers That Be forced server operators to add a patch to better support such broken-server-supporting applications. No one will be forced to fix their insecure, version-intolerant servers, and it is unlikely that those will ever implement TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV. It's a bit like telling people to wear gas mask, instead of taking measures against air polution. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
