https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/r5vzqx/any_browsers_left_that_can_do_ssl_1020/ has some non-medical examples of impacted devices, and a workaround using firefox... which might still work. If it does, it could be mentioned in release notes as a courtesy to possibly affected users.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024, 6:28 AM Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 8:44 AM Chad Sheridan <chadapsheri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > As a sysadmin, I welcome all of the changes. As far as warnings/alerts, I > > can safely say, most of our clients don't read them anyway. > > > > > Can those machines be put behind a proxy? > > > > As for this, of course they can, but some clients will be tied up with so > > much red tape and budgetary BS that it's a solution that isn't feasible > in > > a reasonable time frame. > > ++. Medical devices certified 10 or 15 years ago won't be able to > pivot as quickly as most people would like. And as I understand > things, the certifications for medical equipment can be lengthier and > more expensive than NIST's Cryptographic Module Validation Program. > > (It's somewhat amazing how often Windows CE and Windows Mobile crop up > every now and again). > > Jeff >
